MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130402625 · doi:10.3138/cpp.34.1.065

Health Care Utilization in Canada: Twenty-five Years of Evidence

2008· article· en· W2130402625 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lori J. Curtis, William J. MacMinn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsGovernment of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusHealth careEquity (law)Health equityPublic healthEnvironmental healthHealth insuranceMedicineHealth servicesBusinessNursingEconomic growthPolitical sciencePopulationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A plethora of literature links socioeconomic status (SES) to health and health care utilization. Recent anecdotal evidence indicates that Canadians believe their access to health care is diminishing. This study describes health care utilization patterns for services provided under public health insurance (physicians, specialists, and hospitals) in Canada between 1978 and 2003. The relationship between SES and utilization, controlling for health and demographic characteristics, is examined to investigate whether changes in the equity of utilization have occurred over time. Results indicate that SES inequities in utilization are apparent, appearing to be more relevant in initial contact with the system than in the number of visits. Specialists' services are particularly problematic and becoming more so over time.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0160.040
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.119 · 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

Citations48
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207