MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098273775

PHYSICIAN-COMMUNITY INTEGRATION: A CASE STUDY OF PRACTITIONER EXPERIENCES AND RETENTION CHALLENGES ON BRITISH COLUMBIA’S HAIDA GWAII/

2015· article· en· W7098273775 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchGovernment (linguistics)PerceptionCommunity healthHealth careCommunity practiceGeneral practiceQueen (butterfly)Qualitative analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ii Social life, and particularly health care delivery, in a small isolated community is more complex and nuanced than has been reflected in much of the literature on physician retention, which has never extended the notion of the “workload ” past the physician’s formal role in the health care setting. Despite having been acknowledged by provincial and national government policies, few of what Anderson and Rosenberg (1990) describe as “unidimensional solutions ” have resolved the “multidimensional issues ” of physician retention in northern Canada. This thesis employs a qualitative framework to investigate the practice and lifestyle experiences of general practitioners on the Queen Charlotte Islands (Haida Gwaii) to provide a local analysis of physician retention problems experienced by isolated communities. By including both physicians and community members as key informants, the project attempts to determine whether a difference exists between physicians ’ perceptions of place and their roles and the voiced expectations of the communities they serve. The research uses a combination of in-depth interviews and questionnaires with physicians (n=6) and community members (n=12) to determine the various roles played by a

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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.135 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207