Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article describes the use of health care by Canada's senior population: consultations with selected health care providers, medication use, hospitalization and home care. DATA SOURCES: Data are from the 2003 Canadian Community Health Survey and the 2002/03 Hospital Morbidity Database. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Cross-tabulations were used to estimate the proportion of seniors who consulted health care professionals, took medications, were hospitalized, and used home care. Linear and multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine associations between health and the number of physician consultations in the past year, the number of medications taken in the past month, and hospitalization and home care use in the past year. MAIN RESULTS: In 2003, nearly 90% of seniors reported that they had consulted a general practitioner or family doctor in the past year, 92% reported taking at least one type of medication in the past month, 14% had been hospitalized in the past year and 15% had received home care in the past year. Chronic conditions, poor health and severe injury were strongly associated with health care use. In multivariate analysis, socio-economic status was generally not related to seniors' use of health care services.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".