Challenges and impacts from wait times for specialist care identified by primary care providers: Results from the MAAP study cross-sectional survey
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
In Canada, primary care providers are the front door to other services in the health system, such as specialist care. Compared to other countries, Canadians experience long wait times for specialist referrals and appointments leading to poorer health outcomes for patients. Although there is attention paid to the impacts of these waits on patients, little is known about how long specialist care wait times impact primary care providers. As part of a larger study surveying primary care clinics in Nova Scotia, primary care providers were invited to participate in a follow-up survey on comprehensive care and specialist wait times. We thematically analyzed responses to an open text field about specialist wait times. Respondents shared experiences with challenging specialist wait times, strategies to manage patients waiting for specialist care, and recommendations for improving access to specialist care in Nova Scotia, Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it