Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Stakeholders affiliated with healthcare services should understand patient attitudes and criteria that are involved in selecting a personal physician. The purpose of this paper is to identify the factors that are significant to patients in selecting or deselecting physicians as providers of healthcare services. Design/methodology/approach The research structure was set to theorize the physician selection criteria (PSC) model into two phases. The first phase developed a conceptual model as revealed from healthcare consumer perceptions. The second phase was designed to test and validate the model through cause–effect statistical analysis underpinned by theoretical explanations through an empirical study. Findings Through an empirical study of benchmarking perceptions of people from 15 different countries, qualitative PSC were gathered and used to formulate an initial PSC model. Based on the proposed model, a validity test was conducted, and finally, the PSC model was developed, resulting in several interesting and self-explanatory outcomes. Research limitations/implications The model was tested in only one (relatively cosmopolitan) city. For proper generalization, it should be tested in countries with differing healthcare service systems. Practical implications The results of this study are interesting, important and have potential values to academics and medical professionals. The study provides strong evidence that a physician’s external approach to patients is the most significant issue for patients seeking medical services. This does not refer to basic medical services, but rather the treatment process, where the physician’s behavior and positive attitude has the strongest effect on the patient’s decision to choose one physician over others. Originality/value Final PSC model has identified some significant theoretical explanations for academics and professional justifications for practitioners.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it