A spatial analysis of a community-based selection of indigents in Burkina Faso
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over recent decades, Burkina Faso has improved the geographic accessibility of its health centres. However, patients are still required to pay point-of-service user fees, which excludes the most vulnerable from access to care. In 2010, 259 village committees in the Ouargaye district selected 2649 indigents to be exempted from user fees. The 26 health centre management committees that fund this exemption retained 1097 of those selected indigents. Spatial analysis showed that the management committees retained the indigents who were geographically closer to the health centres, in contrast to the selections of the village committees which were more diversified. Using village committees to select indigents would seem preferable to using management committees. It is not yet known whether the management committees' selections were due to a desire to maximize the benefits of exemption by giving it to those most likely to use it, or to the fact that they did not personally know the indigents who were more geographically distant from them, or that some villages are not represented at the management committees.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".