Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To gauge the public’s opinion of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario’s (CPSO’s) policy on how primary care physicians should accept new patients. Design Deliberative citizens’ council. Setting Toronto, Ont. Participants Twenty-five public members of the Toronto Health Policy Citizens’ Council. Methods A 2-day council session was held, during which the new policy was presented and council members heard from experts with various perspectives on the issues involved. Council members then deliberated and developed recommendations concerning the policy. Main findings Council members agreed that a first-come, first-served policy was an appropriate method for family physicians to use when accepting new patients. They thought the policy’s exception, which allows physicians not to accept patients based on a lack of clinical competency in an area, should be clarified in order to avoid it being used as an excuse to inappropriately screen patients. Counsel members also encouraged the CPSO to publicize its policy as widely as possible, so that potential patients undergoing screening in the future will recognize that this goes against the CPSO’s policy and can take appropriate action if they wish. Conclusion How family physicians accept new patients into their practices is a sensitive issue. The CPSO policy provides guidance on how new patients should be admitted, which, if it is appropriately enacted, seems reasonable to informed members of the public.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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 teacher head, 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".