Demand and Burden of Dental Care in Canadian Households
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines factors associated with dental care spending in Canada employing through three models; the first model estimates the income elasticity of demand for dental care and the other two models estimate the share of total household income spent on dental care. The income elasticity of Canadian households in 2009 with respect to out-of-pocket dental care spending was 0.146 (p-value<0.001). The lowest income quintile had the highest odds for spending $0 on dental care, which could indicate not using dental care or having full coverage. However, when these households did spend on dental care, they were most likely to have a higher burden of dental expenditure as a share of household income. Having private health insurance is associated with an increase in the demand for dental care but it also reduces the likelihood of the households having a higher burden of dental expenditures as a share of household income. Older adults (65 years or older), compared to young adults (aged 29 years or less) are most likely to spend on dental care and most likely to be in the higher burden category (RRR 2.55 compared to lower burden category, p-value < 0.001). This study found significant interprovincial variation; Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Alberta households were found to spend the most on dental care when compared to the rest of the provinces.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".