Advancing Family Medicine Research: A Guidance Report for the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) recognizes the critical role of family medicine (FM) research in primary care and healthcare systems. Engaging researchers and leveraging evidence are essential for addressing the challenges faced by FM and family physicians. This presentation outlines the specific roles and actions that the CFPC can consider and pursue as a champion of FM research in Canada. The development of a guidance report began in August 2022 and was informed by individuals and organizations within Canada and abroad. An iterative approach was used to refine potential opportunities and areas of action to support FM research. The process involved a variety of information-gathering and consultative steps. Initial interviews with 12 Canadian key informants (Consultations Phase 1) established broad direction and thematic foci. An environmental scan clarified the current research environment in Canada and internationally. Focus group consultations (Consultations Phase 2) with over 50 individuals, and a representative survey of 303 CFPC Members and Board Members (Consultations Phase 3) helped define roles and actions for the CFPC The process informed the development of a planning framework with 36 potential action areas across four key areas: building knowledge and skills, facilitating research collaboration, advocating for support for FM research, and promoting FM research. The actions are intended to support family physicians and FM researchers to participate in research across different levels of engagement, including staying informed about and evaluating research, engaging in quality improvement (QI), participating in formal research projects, and working as a professional researcher. While all actions could enhance FM research, further prioritization was made and nine actions were identified, with equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) incorporated into each action. These actions span three constituencies: CFPC Members, the Discipline/Profession of FM, and Society. The CFPC Board endorsed the guidance report in December 2023. The report provides guidance for the CFPC’s future work to support research and will inform its strategic planning processes. Ongoing engagement and collaboration with the FM research community will be crucial. Further refinement of CFPC research roles and actions will produce a detailed implementation plan, ensuring that FM research has a significant impact on the Canadian healthcare system.
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 | 0.044 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".