Primary care renewal strategies in Manitoba: Family physicians' perceptions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand family physicians' perceptions of Manitoba's strategies for primary care renewal or reform (PCR). DESIGN: Qualitative substudy of an explanatory case study. SETTING: Rural and urban Manitoba. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 60 family physicians (31 fee-for-service physicians, 26 alternate-funded physicians, and 3 physicians representing provincial physician organizations). METHODS: Semistructured interviews and focus groups. MAIN FINDINGS: Many physicians were hesitant to participate in PCR initiatives, perceiving clear risks but uncertain benefits to patients and providers. Additional barriers to participation included concerns about the adequacy and import of communication about PCR, the meaningfulness of opportunities for physician "voice," and the trustworthiness of decision makers. There was an appetite for tailored, clinic-level support in addressing concrete, physician-identified problems; however, the initiatives on offer were not widely viewed as providing such support. CONCLUSION: Although some of the observed barriers might fade over time, concentrating PCR efforts on the everyday realities of family physician practice might be the best way to build a primary care system that works for patients and providers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".