MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965304531 · doi:10.1177/0020872805050207

Utilization and accessibility of social services for Chinese Canadians

2005· article· fr· W1965304531 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ambrose Ma, Iris Chi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Social Work · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceEthnic groupHumanitiesService (business)ChinaChinese societySociologyArtBusinessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

English The findings show that the awareness of service agencies and opinions on the services provided are predictors of Chinese Canadians’ service utilization, and that one-third of Chinese Canadians have not used any social services, for various reasons. When planning services for an ethnic minority group like Chinese Canadians, planners should consider socio-cultural and structural factors alike. French Les résultats de cette étude démontrent que l’utilisation des services sociaux est liée à la connaissance et aux opinions des canadiens d'origine chinoise de ces mêmes services. Un tiers des canadiens d’origine chinoise n’ont pas eu recours aux services sociaux, pour plusieurs raisons. Des facteurs structurels et culturels devraient être pris en considération lors de la planification des services sociaux. Spanish Los resultados muestran que el conocimiento y la opinión sobre las agencias de servicios sociales predicen su utilización por los canadienses de origen chino. También que un tercio de estos ciudadanos, debido a varias razones, no han usado ningún servicio social. En la planificación de servicios para grupos étnicos minoritarios tales como el de los canadienses de origen chino, se han de considerar tanto los factores socioculturales como los estructurales.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations16
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Social WorkSame topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207