MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154558939 · doi:10.1017/s0714980809990389

Does Geography Matter? The Health Service Use and Unmet Health Care Needs of Older Canadians

2010· article· fr· W2154558939 on OpenAlexaffabout
James Ted McDonald, Heather Conde

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth servicesHealth geographyHealth careGeographyService (business)GerontologyMedicineNursingEnvironmental healthEconomic growthBusinessHealth policyPublic healthInternational healthMarketingPopulationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RÉSUMÉ Le coût croissant de soins de santé et le changement des profils démographiques ont entraîné le déplacement et la redistribution du financement et des services entre les zones rurales et urbaines. La plupart des analyses économétriques de l’utilisation de services de santé au Canada incluent des contrôles larges selon la province et l’état rural/urbain; mais relativement peu du travail économétrique a porté sur la variation géographique dans l’utilisation de services de santé. À l’aide de l’Enquête sur la santé dans les collectivités canadiennes (ESCC 2.1), nous avons examiné les déterminants de diverses mesures d’utilisation des services de santé par les Canadiens âgés de 55 ou plus d’une gamme de zones urbaines et rurales de résidence. Notre analyse de régression a montré que les anciens résidents dans les zones rurales font moins visites chez un omnipraticien, chez un spécialiste et chez un dentiste par rapport aux résidents urbains. Tout étant égal, il n’existe aucune différence significative parmi nuits passées à l’hôpital ou dans les besoins de soins de santé non satisfaits. Cependant, apres contrôle pour les caractéristiques démographiques, le statut socioéconomique, l’assurance santé privée et l’état de santé, ces différences sont importantes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations65
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207