Health Status and Healthcare Use Patterns of Rural, Northern and Urban Manitobans: Is Romanow Right?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare health status and healthcare services use of rural, northern and urban Manitobans. METHOD: Using anonymized administrative claims data derived from the Population Health Research Data Repository housed at the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, four Manitoba regions were compared--Winnipeg, Brandon, Rural South and North--for 1996/97-2000/01. Indicators include mortality and morbidity, ambulatory physician visit and specialist consultation rates, prevention/screening rates, selected surgery rates (cardiac catheterization, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, hip replacement) and "discretionary" surgery rates (tonsillectomy/adenoidectomy, Caesarean section, hysterectomy). Rates were annualized, directly standardized to the 1996 provincial population, and statistically tested for differences among the regions using Hotelling's T(2) statistic. RESULTS: Mortality and morbidity are high in the North, but the Rural South is average (except for high rates of injury mortality and stroke). Rural South and North have low ambulatory physician visits and specialist consultation rates, but high hospitalization rates compared to Brandon and Winnipeg. In prevention/screening rates, Rural South is variable and the North is low. For surgery rates, Rural South is variable, North is average, Brandon has below-average surgical rates but high rates of discretionary procedures, and Winnipeg has high surgical rates but low discretionary procedures. Thus, "urban" is not necessarily synonymous with good health and better access to services, nor is "rural" or "remote" synonymous with poor health and inadequate healthcare.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".