Defining rural teaching hospitals in Canada: Developing and testing a new definition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The current definition of 'teaching hospital' provided by Canadian Institute of Health Information (CIHI) focuses on large academic teaching hospitals. High-quality rural training experiences have been identified as a key component of training the future rural medical workforce. Identifying communities and hospitals where this training is currently available and taking place is important in understanding the current landscape of available rural training but is hampered by the lack of an agreed upon definition of 'rural teaching hospital'. This limits the understanding of current rural training landscapes, comparison across regions and research in this area. We propose a definition of a 'rural teaching hospital'. METHODS: Using the CIHI definition of rural as an initial reference point, we used accessible data from the University of Calgary and University of Alberta Distributed Medical Education (DME) programs to develop a definition of a 'rural teaching hospital'. We then identified rural Alberta hospitals to show how this definition would work in practice. RESULTS: Our definition of a rural teaching hospital is a hospital situated in a town of <30,000 people, teaching occurs at least 36 h a week and that teaching includes at least Family Medicine clerkship OR Family Medicine residency rotations. We identified 104 Alberta rural hospitals. The University of Calgary and University of Alberta DME programs included 70 communities and 44 of these communities met all three proposed criteria for rural teaching hospitals. CONCLUSION: Creating a working definition of a 'rural teaching hospital' is of high importance for both research and for day-to-day operations of rural educational units.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".