MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330881185 · doi:10.3406/oss.2003.932

Indice de défavorisation matérielle et sociale : son application au secteur de la santé et du bien-être

2003· article· en· W2330881185 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert Pampalon, Guy Raymond

Bibliographic record

VenueSanté Société et Solidarité · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusIndex (typography)Life expectancyInequalitySocial inequalityPopulationWelfare economicsMedicineGerontologyBusinessEnvironmental healthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interest in measuring social inequalities in health in Québec is relatively recent and has been hampered by the lack of socioeconomic information in the administrative databases on health. To compensate for this lack of data, a material and social deprivation index has been introduced into a dozen of these databases, making it possible to carry out numerous analyses. The present article describes the design and uses of this index and underlines the importance of social inequalities in terms of population health (healthy life expectancy), certain health and social problems (intentional or unintentional injuries, problems experienced by youth), use of health and social services at the national (hospitalization, day surgery and long-term care facilities) and local (services offered by local community service centres) levels, and allocation of public resources (physician compensation and funding of community organizations). The advantages and limitations of this index are also put into perspective, as are the possibilities it offers for research and decision-making.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.431 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations63
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSanté Société et SolidaritéSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207