Using GIS and spatial statistics to explore and model demand for emergency medical services in the city of Sudbury, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to examine the nature of the relationship between EMS ambulance call volume and demographic, socioeconomic and geographic (urban structural) forces in the City of Sudbury, a medium sized city of approximately 100,000 persons in Ontario, Canada. As in past research in the area of EMS demand, linear regression is used to model this relationship. However, unlike previous work, spatial autocorrelation inherent in real world data is addressed to mitigate violation of the assumption of independence required for classic regression. Using a Geographical Information System (ArcView 3.2) EMS data are geolocated onto a spatial framework for which 1996 census data are available. A spatial analysis program (SpaceStat 1.90) is used to operationalize a spatial model, and perform a battery of spatial diagnostics. After exploring the data with an aspatial stepwise regression model and identifying spatial autocorrelation in the explanatory variables, a mixed aspatial/spatial stepwise regression model is used. The variables "Percent People Living Alone" and its spatially lagged version, a lagged version of "Percent of Apartment Dwellings" and lagged "Percent of People Aged 20 to 64" account for 52% of the variation in EMS calls per 1,000 persons. Clearly, demand for Emergency Medical Services varies greatly from place to place within a community. And this variety is, in part at least, related to underlying demographic and socioeconomic realities. Strategic deployment of resources based on these realities could assure provision of more effective and efficient Emergency Medical Services. Also, injury prevention and health promotion programs could be targeted more precisely to groups and areas in need through the help of EMS demand analysis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".