Promoting access to family medicine in Québec, Canada: Analysis of bill 20, enacted in November 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary care can potentially make an important contribution to improving health system performance. However, Canada does not fare as well as other developed countries in terms of timely access to primary health care services. In November 2015, Bill 20 was introduced in the province of Québec. The goal of Bill 20 was to optimize the utilisation of medical and financial resources to improve access to primary care. Bill 20 states the obligations of general practitioners to register a minimum number of patients, ensure the continuity of care of that population, and practice a minimum number of hours in hospitals. Many actors agreed that access to primary care had to be improved in Québec, but disagreed with Bill 20. In particular, family physicians strongly opposed the financial penalties that were introduced for physicians failing to meet the specified targets. In January 2018, 3 years after Bill 20, indicators for patient registration and continuity of care have considerably improved. However, the attractiveness of general practice seems to have decreased among medical graduates, which creates uncertainty regarding the sustainability of the achievements brought on by Bill 20.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".