Statut socio-économique et utilisation des services de santé à Montréal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
National health insurance was implemented in Quebec in late 1970. Previously reported surveys carried out in Montreal in 1969-70 and 1971-72 showed that while there was no change in overall volume of services, there was a redistribution, with increases among the poor and decreases among the wealthy. We conducted a survey in late 1974 to determine the "steady-state" impact of l’assurance-maladie on social class differences in health care utilization. In a socially heterogeneous area of Montreal 1,559 households were surveyed. When reported morbidity status was taken into account, physician visit rates in the past two weeks were 21.6 per cent, 20.2 per cent, and 20.4 per cent in low, middle and high economic classes respectively, confirming the disparity of access has been reduced. However, relative to the non-poor, the poor still made considerable use of hospital clinics and emergency rooms for primary care and more of their visits entailed prescriptions and physician-initiated requests to return. The latter may indicate that the poor still consult the doctor for more advanced conditions than the non-poor. There is no evidence of abuse of "free" medical care by the poor. In contrast to the equalization in use of physician services, dental services are still unequally distributed, although compared with the 1969-70 and 1971-72 surveys, utilization rates were higher in 1974 in all social classes. The overall increase in per capita physician visits was confirmed by statistics of the Régie de l’assurance-maladie du Québec. A parallel increase in the supply of physicians kept the workload of the average physician at a constant level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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.
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".