MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400008737 · doi:10.3280/ses2024-002002

Redefining work engagement: identity crisis and the quest for meaning at work of family physicians in Québec

2024· article· en· W4400008737 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nancy Côté, Andrew Freeman, Laurent Desjardins, Jean‐Louis Denis

Bibliographic record

VenueSALUTE E SOCIETÀ · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial careHealth careSociologyMedicineNursingEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Access to primary healthcare is an important challenge in many countries, posing significant problems for population health and health equity. While family physicians' (FPs) dedication is considered essential to increase access to primary care, several indications of a certain demobi-lization, even a deeper disengagement, among FPs has emerged. Using a specific case, that of FPs in the province of Quebec (Canada), this article aims to capture the processes that lead these professionals to redefine their work engagement by exploring various tensions that permeate their practice and impact meaning at work. The findings presented in this article are based on the analysis of 35 individual semi-directed interviews with FPs from three labor market integration cohorts (early-, mid- and late-career) working in various care settings. Our findings suggest that the tensions experienced related to the representation of family medicine, career expectations and personal aspirations lead many FPs to redefine their work engagement over the course of their professional journey. While physicians consistently demonstrate strong commitment to their patients, many disengage from work environments that impose practices contrary to their professional values and how they define high-quality family medi-cine, as well as conditions that hinder their involvement in family life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSALUTE E SOCIETÀSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207