MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980506883 · doi:10.2190/hs.39.1.h

Barrio Adentro and the Reduction of Health Inequalities in Venezuela: An Appraisal of the First Years

2009· article· en· W1980506883 on OpenAlexaff
Francisco Armada, Carles Muntaner, Haejoo Chung, Leslie Williams-Brennan, Joan Benach

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Services · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Health and Social Inequalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersInter-American Development Bank
KeywordsSociologyHealth careGerontologyMedicineLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents an update on the characteristics and performance of Venezuela's Bolivarian health care system, Barrio Adentro (Inside the Neighborhood). During its first five years of existence, Barrio Adentro has improved access and utilization of health services by reaching approximately 17 million impoverished and middle-class citizens all over Venezuela. This was achieved in approximately two years and provides an example of an immense "South-South" cooperation and participatory democracy in health care. Popular participation was achieved with the Comités de Salud (health committees) and more recently with the Consejos Comunales (community councils), while mostly Cuban physicians provided medical care. Examination of a few epidemiological indicators for the years 2004 and 2005 of Barrio Adentro reveals the positive impact of this health care program, in particular its primary care component, Barrio Adentro I. Continued political commitment and realistic evaluations are needed to sustain and improve Barrio Adentro, especially its primary care services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.368 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations50
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Health ServicesSame topicPublic Health and Social InequalitiesFrench-language works237,207