Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background
 Whole person care has been a foundation of the modern practice of family medicine, and therefore one might expect that such an approach by family practitioners would evolve and mature over time. Some of these clinicians, however, currently question their ability to provide such holistic care because of external factors they perceive as negative, and over which they have little or no control.
 Objectives
 This presentation will explore perceived inhibiting factors affecting family doctors ability to provide whole person care within the publicly-funded health care system of the Canadian province of Quebec. 
 Method
 The presenter, an academic and clinician scientist with forty-four years of experience practicing family medicine, will present personal perspectives, along with those gathered informally from a broad cadre of colleagues working in different settings. Using the idiom of “elephant in the room” to identify problems or obstacles that may not be voiced, this talk will start with consideration of elephant anatomy as being comprised of thirteen distinct anatomical parts that contribute to a functional whole. An analogy will be developed in which thirteen distinct factors are presented as likely impeding or discouraging whole person care by family physicians. 
 Conclusion
 Some agendas and policies of health care planners and administrators, either alone or collectively, and intentionally or unintentionally, may decrease opportunity or ability of family physicians to provide whole person 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".