MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976762808 · doi:10.1177/107755870005700204

Access to Medical Care Reported by Asians and Pacific Islanders in a West Coast Physician Group Association

2000· article· en· W1976762808 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rani Snyder, William E. Cunningham, Terry T. Nakazono, Ron D. Hays

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Care Research and Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsPacific islandersEthnic groupPsychological interventionMedicineQuarter (Canadian coin)OddsHealth careGerontologyFamily medicineDemographyEnvironmental healthGeographyNursingEconomic growthPolitical scienceLogistic regressionSociologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines access to medical care for Asians and Pacific Islanders in the United States, using a survey of patients receiving care provided by a physician group practice association concentrated on the West Coast. Asians and Pacific Islanders who had used their health plan in the past year had worse access to health care than whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Native American or other ethnicities. The odds that Asians reported that they had adequate access ranged from about one quarter to three quarters that of whites, depending on the measure. Cultural differences and associated communication problems may explain the access problems experienced by Asians. Interventions need to be developed to address the problems with access to services, and better translation services may play an important role in improving access to care for Asians. Future studies need to clarify why Asians were more vulnerable to the access problems examined than other ethnic groups that might experience similar barriers.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.309 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations59
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Care Research and ReviewSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207