MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404809062 · doi:10.1370/afm.22.s1.6265

Distribution and language abilities of primary care physicians in Ontario

2024· article· en· W4404809062 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lise M. Bjerre, Alain P. Gauthier, Christopher Belanger, Patrick Timony, Antoine Désilets

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary careDistribution (mathematics)Primary (astronomy)Computer scienceBusinessMedicineFamily medicineMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Language-concordant healthcare is an important social determinant of health, associated with better patient outcomes and lower mortality in some settings. Understanding where Ontario’s family physicians practice and how many can provide language-concordant care to official language minority communities can inform future research and policy development. Objectives: To conduct an Ontario-wide geospatial analysis of the supply of French-speaking physicians and French-speaking Ontarians, identifying underserved regions based on counts and physician/patient ratios. Study Design and Analysis: A descriptive cross-sectional geospatial analysis. Setting or Dataset: Publicly available physician data was collected from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario’s (CPSO) website in January 2024. Regional geographic and census data were obtained from Statistics Canada’s public website. Population Studied: Population of Ontario, Canada Intervention/Instrument: R Language for Statistical Computing (R Core Team 2023) and RStudio (Posit team 2023). Outcomes Measured: Prevalence and distribution of community-based family physicians in Ontario (all, and French-speaking). Results: The study found n=41,814 physicians practicing in Ontario, with n=14,754 (35.3%) identified as community-based family physicians. Of these, n=1,678 (11.4%) reported speaking French. French-speaking family physicians, and family physicians in general, are not uniformly distributed across the province compared to the population. Northern and rural regions of Ontario are particularly under-served. French-speaking family physicians were more prevalent in Southern vs Northern Ontario (3.9 vs. 2.0 French-speaking physicians per 1,000 Francophone residents), and Urban vs. Rural Ontario (3.7 vs. 2.4 French-speaking physicians per 1,000 Francophone residents). However, Ontario Francophone residents are contrastingly more likely to live in Rural and Northern regions than the general population. Conclusion: Locating Ontario’s French-speaking family physicians is an important step towards measuring and understanding gaps in access to language-concordant healthcare for Francophone residents. However, more sophisticated measures of healthcare access, such as travel burden analyses to estimate local access to family physicians within a specific distance, and estimating competition for scarce resources should be considered.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207