MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394753540 · doi:10.1136/fmch-2024-002790

Storylines of family medicine III: core principles—primary care, systems and family

2024· article· en· W4394753540 on OpenAlexaff
William Ventres, Leslie A Stone, Timothy A Joslin, John Saultz, Sommer Aldulaimi, Paul Gordon, John Lane, Eric R. Lee, Jacob Prunuske, Limor Gildenblatt, Michael H Friedman, Colleen T. Fogarty, Susan H. McDaniel, Tessa Rohrberg, Amy Odom

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Medicine and Community Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Family Medicine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary careScope (computer science)Family medicineScope of practiceValue (mathematics)MedicineNursingHealth careMedical educationPsychologyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

is a 12-part series of thematically linked mini-essays with accompanying illustrations that explore the many dimensions of family medicine, as interpreted by individual family physicians and medical educators in the USA and elsewhere around the world. In 'III: core principles-primary care, systems, and family', authors address the following themes: 'Continuity of care-building therapeutic relationships over time', 'Comprehensiveness-combining breadth and depth of scope', 'Coordination of care-managing multiple realities', 'Access to care-intersectional, systemic, and personal', 'Systems theory-a core value in patient-centered care', 'Family-oriented practice-supporting patients' health and well-being', 'Family physician as family member' and 'Family in the exam room'. May readers develop new understandings from these essays.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.282
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily Medicine and Community HealthSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207