MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2180262111 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2014-076

Inégalités sociales de santé au Québec : prévalence de l’incapacité et des maladies chroniques selon l’âge et le niveau de défavorisation en 2010-2011

2015· article· fr· W2180262111 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Chantale Lecours, Marie-Pier Labrie, Nadine Ouellette

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsQuebec Statistical Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À partir des données de l’Enquête québécoise sur les limitations d’activités, les maladies chroniques et le vieillissement 2010-2011 (EQLAV), cette étude nous a permis d’analyser la prévalence de l’incapacité et des maladies chroniques selon l’âge afin que nous puissions déterminer, en utilisant une méthode non paramétrique de lissage par P-splines et en établissant un intervalle de confiance pour chaque différence de prévalences, s’il existe des inégalités entre les personnes les plus favorisées et celles qui le sont le moins (respectivement les quintiles 1 et 5 de l’indice de défavorisation). Notre étude révèle que les courbes de prévalences de l’incapacité selon l’âge suivent des tendances relativement similaires selon le niveau de défavorisation, ce qui n’est cependant pas le cas pour les courbes de prévalences des maladies chroniques selon l’âge. Nous montrons aussi qu’il existe des inégalités sociales de santé dans les prévalences de l’incapacité et des maladies chroniques selon le niveau de défavorisation pour certains âges.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207