MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160398060 · doi:10.3138/cpp.33.4.487

Equity in Pharmaceutical Utilization in Ontario: A Cross-Section and Over Time Analysis

2007· article· en· W2160398060 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Hai Zhong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)InequalityPopulationDemographic economicsEconomicsPublic economicsActuarial scienceDemographyPolitical scienceSociologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates inequality and inequity in pharmaceutical utilization in Ontario. First, I compare inequality and inequity in drug use between the senior and non-senior population of Ontario at three points in time: 1990, 1996/97, and 2000/01. During this period, all seniors were universally covered by the publicly financed Ontario Drug Benefit (ODB) program. This was not the case for the non-senior population. Second, I examine the changes in inequality and inequity for both population groups at each of the three time points. Cost-sharing and other changes were introduced into the ODB in this period, which allows us to identify the influence on equity of changes in drug coverage policies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

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

Citations30
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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