Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To examine the practice patterns and clinical and academic roles of family physicians who have care of the elderly training. DESIGN Cross-sectional survey. SETTING Family medicine practices or specialized geriatric services programs. PARTICIPANTS Fifty-two family physicians, surveyed in 2005 and 2006, identified as having 6 or 12 months’ care of the elderly training. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Self-reported practice type and description of clinical and academic roles. RESULTS Surveys were sent to 103 physicians; the response rate was 50.5% (N = 52). Respondents were relatively young, with a mean age of 42 years. Slightly more respondents had completed 6 months of training than had completed a full year of training (54.9% vs 45.1%). More than half (55.8%) described their medical practice areas as “general family medicine.” The remainder worked in “restricted practices” (25.0%) or provided “specialist care” (17.3%); 1 physician was no longer practising medicine. Many provided some care within specialized geriatric service areas, most commonly in-hospital consultation and rehabilitation. More than half (51.9%) provided active hospital care, and a substantial number worked in long-term care facilities as physicians or medical directors. More than 20% provided newborn care, although only a small percentage (7.7%) performed obstetric services. Respondents were actively involved in teaching and other academic activities, including resident supervision. CONCLUSION Care of the elderly physicians provide comprehensive family medicine services, but also often provide care in other areas currently facing physician shortages. Care of the elderly physicians play relevant clinical and academic roles in both family medicine training and specialized geriatric services.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".