Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Compliance with preventive care recommendations differs between countries. Directly comparable data are often not available. The recent release of the Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health makes available data for both Canadians and Americans. OBJECTIVES: The health care systems in the United States and Canada differ quite dramatically. Canadians are covered by a universal health care system while residents of the United States, if they are insured, obtain their insurance from various private or public sources. This paper examines how the use of the Papanicolaou test (Pap smear) by women differs in the United States and Canada. METHODOLOGY: American women are more likely than Canadians to receive a pap smear. A Blinder/Oaxaca type decomposition is used to determine influence of observed population characteristics and unobserved differences between the 2 countries on this gap. RESULTS: The decomposition shows that the gap in Pap smears between Canada and the United States is not influenced by observed demographic differences. Most of the difference is attributable to unobserved heterogeneity or how women are treated in the 2 systems. CONCLUSIONS: Although Canada has universal health coverage, the use of Pap smears is lower than that of all US women and equal to that of uninsured US women. Most of the differences in use of Pap smears is the result of differences in unobserved heterogeneity or the way that the systems treat women which may be a function of differences between the 2 health care systems in marketing, delivering, and reimbursing care.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".