Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem addressed There has been a decline in family physicians providing home visits to housebound patients. Objective of program To increase family medicine residents’ exposure to home visits; their comfort and skills in providing home visits; and their willingness to provide home visits after graduation. Program description Between 2000 and 2010, each family practice resident at St Joseph’s Health Centre Family Medicine Teaching Unit in Toronto, Ont, was assigned at least 1 housebound patient to care for longitudinally over 2 years; the rationale for this was to increase the sense of “ownership” and responsibility among residents for their assigned homebound patients. Starting in 2003, until the program’s conclusion in 2010, residents were asked to fill out surveys before and after the program to assess their comfort with and confidence in providing home visits, as well as their satisfaction with the program. Survey responses were analyzed for changes over the course of residency training. A total of 85 residents completed the home visit teaching program between 2003 and 2010 inclusive. Conclusion While residents’ willingness to provide home visits did not increase over the course of residency, their confidence in making housecalls did increase. There was also a trend toward increased confidence among residents in working with community agencies. Thus, having home visit patients be a part of resident practices might play an important role in increasing the likelihood that future family physicians will continue to care for their patients when those patients are no longer ambulatory.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".