MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078710679 · doi:10.1093/inthealth/iht004

Two years post-tsunami in Thailand: who still needs assistance?

2013· article· en· W2078710679 on OpenAlexafffund
Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai, Denise N. Guerriere, Gavin J. Andrews, Peter C. Coyte

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMarital statusMental healthLogistic regressionMedicineEnvironmental healthHealth careService providerService (business)SocioeconomicsBusinessEconomic growthPopulationPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: On 26 December 2004, 280 000 people lost their lives in the Asia-Pacific region. A massive earthquake struck Indonesia, triggering a tsunami that affected several countries, including Thailand. This tsunami had important implications for the health status of Thai citizens and health planning, and thus there is a need to study its long-term impact. METHODS: This cohort study identified determinants of health service utilization (outpatient services, inpatient services, home care, medications and informal care) 1 and 2 years post-tsunami in Thailand. A two-part model with a multivariate logistic regression for each part was used to identify determinants of the propensity and intensity of utilization. RESULTS: Of 1943 participants, 1889 (97.2%) participated at 1 year and 1814/1889 (96.0%) at 2 years. Common determinants of health service utilization in post-tsunami settings were age, marital status, education level, employment status, number of health conditions and (physical and mental) health status. CONCLUSIONS: Knowing the determinants of health service use, health providers may be able to establish programmes for, or to carefully monitor populations, who are more likely to use services. The study results may be used to inform requests for health resources or to assist the development of guidelines for long-term disaster recovery planning.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.381 · 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational HealthSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207