Comparison of Health Care Utilization: United States versus Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare health care utilization between Canadian and U.S. residents. DATA SOURCES: Nationally representative 2007 surveys from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey for the United States and the Canadian Community Health Survey for Canada. STUDY DESIGN: We use descriptive and multivariate methods to examine differences in health care utilization rates for visits to medical providers, nurses, chiropractors, specialists, dentists, and overnight hospital stays, usual source of care, Pap smear tests, and mammograms. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The poor and less educated were more likely to utilize health care in Canada than in the United States. The differences were especially pronounced for having a usual source of care and for visits to providers, specialists, and dentists. Health care use for residents with high incomes and higher levels of education were not markedly different between the two countries and often higher for U.S residents. Foreign-born residents were more likely to use health care in Canada than in the United States. The descriptive results were confirmed in multivariate regressions. CONCLUSIONS: Given the magnitude of our results, the health insurance structure in Canada might have played an important role in improving access to care for subpopulations examined in this study.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it