MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027085167 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v6n5p81

An Analysis of Disparities in Access to Health Care in Iran: Evidence from Lorestan Province

2014· article· en· W2027085167 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Reza Nemati, Hesam Seyedin, Ali Nemati, Jamil Sadeghifar, Ali Beigi Nasiri, Seyyed Meysam Mousavi, Keyvan Rahmani, Mostafa Beigi Nasiri

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYearbookHealth careHealth servicesDistribution (mathematics)Descriptive statisticsBusinessEnvironmental healthGeographySocioeconomicsEconomic growthMedicineLibrary scienceSociologyEconomicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Equal distribution of healthcare facilities in order to increase the accessibility of the individuals to services is one of the main pillars in improvement of health. This study was aimed to examine the disparities in access to health care services across the cities of Lorestan province located in west of Iran. This study is a descriptive study. Data related to indicators of institutional and manpower was collected using statistical yearbook of Statistical Centre of Iran (SCI) and analyzed by Scaogram Analysis Model. The results revealed distinct regional disparities in health care services across Lorestan province. According to Scalogram analysis model, Khorramabad and Delfan towns were ranked as the first and the last according to access to health care services. Overally, 44% of the cities are undeveloped and only 22% are credited as developed. Taking the advantage of development-oriented programs, reduction of the gap in health care services in the must be considered in the health policy. Therefore, Delfan, Dorood, Koohdasht and Selseleh are characterized as the underdeveloped and consequently urgently should be considered in planning and deprivation programs.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.006
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207