Meeting the Health Care Needs of Female Crack Users: A Canadian Example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada is an egalitarian society committed to accessible and comprehensive health care. Although there has been a tendency to assume that its various social welfare programs have improved health conditions for lower income citizens, Canada's record in ensuring health equality remains poorer than expected (Humphries and van Doorslaer, 2000; Wasylenki, 2001). The Canadian Health Act stipulates that all residents of Canada are to have access to medically necessary hospital and physician services based on need and not the ability to pay. However, for marginalized groups such as drug users and the homeless, structural barriers to better health remain. This paper examines the health care needs and experiences of 30 women who were heavily involved in the street life of crack and prostitution in Toronto. Through their ready access to local drop-in clinics and nearby hospitals, the women reported generally positive experiences with the health care system. The study concludes that the women experienced many of the health problems that typify homeless, poorly housed and economically marginalized groups. Both positive and negative experiences with the health care system, and structural barriers that hamper its full utilization, are identified.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".