Access and utilization of health services by British Columbia's rural Aboriginal population
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
PURPOSE: To provide a picture of the access and use of health services by Aboriginal British Columbians living in both reserve and off-reserve communities. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This project represents a collaborative effort between the University of British Columbia and multiple Aboriginal community partners. Between June and November 2003, 267 face-to-face interviews were conducted with Aboriginal persons in seven rural community organizations across the province. FINDINGS: This paper reports on the results of a survey of 267 Aboriginal clients. It was found that a substantial number of survey respondents accessed health services provided by an Aboriginal person. Although most respondents felt that services were available, they also identified a number of concerns. These revolved around the need to travel for services, as well as a lack of access to more specialized services. A number of self-reported barriers to service were also identified. These findings have several policy implications and will be useful to service planners. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Several questions for additional research were identified including the need to establish an inventory of service problem areas and investigating service and benefit policy and community awareness issues. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This paper provides policy makers with knowledge on the rural Aboriginal population, a population that has faced long standing problems in accessing appropriate health 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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