Having a regular doctor: rural, semi-urban and urban differences in Newfoundland.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent studies suggest that 23% of adult Newfoundlanders do not have a regular doctor. Using data from the 1995 Newfoundland Panel on Health and Medical Care study, we examined the urban, semi-urban and rural differences in the characteristics of adult (age 20 and over) Newfoundlanders who did and did not have a regular doctor. METHODS: We used chi2 tests and logistic regression to analyze data from 11,789 respondents from randomly selected households in Newfoundland. The dependent variable was "Have a regular doctor" (Yes / No). The independent variable was "Place of residence" (Urban / Semi-urban / Rural) and covariates included socio-demographic and health-related variables. RESULTS: Fifteen percent (1771) of Newfoundlanders did not have a regular doctor. Of these, the largest proportion of respondents without a regular doctor lived in rural communities (74.4%); were male (62.6%); were 20-29 years old (28.7%); married (68.8%); of high socio-economic status (44.7%); working full-time (35.3%); had excellent or good health (83.0%); had no chronic illness (40.3%), disability (93.3%) or impairments to activities of daily living (98.0%); and were in excellent or good emotional health (90.7%). Compared to their urban counterparts, residents of semi-urban communities were as likely (odds ratio 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.26) not to have a regular doctor and residents of rural communities were 4.03 (95% CI 3.50-4.65) times more likely than their urban counterparts not to have a regular doctor. CONCLUSION: In 1995, fewer adult Newfoundlanders than previously estimated did not have a regular doctor. Rural residents were more likely not to have a regular doctor than residents of either urban or semi-urban communities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".