Timely access to primary care in New Brunswick
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the factors that influence variation in timely access to primary care across the different health regions in New Brunswick. DESIGN: Descriptive and comparative study of organizational practices in primary care practices based on speed of access. Data were collected from December 2019 to March 2020 using semistructured interviews conducted by telephone, in person, or online, according to participants' preferences. SETTING: New Brunswick. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were primary care providers. Two types of regions were targeted: those with a higher proportion of citizens with timely access to primary care (regions with faster access) and those with less timely access (regions with slower access). A sample of 27 participants was used. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Organizational practices (ie, new technologies, team-based health services, performance measurement, method of appointment booking, and physician remuneration model) according to prevalence of timely access. RESULTS: =.025), compared with participants from regions with slower access. CONCLUSION: This study found that performance measurements and other organizational practices are favourably linked to timely access to primary care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".