MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753011439 · doi:10.1080/00981389.2017.1373724

Profound barriers to basic cancer care most notably experienced by uninsured women: Historical note on the present policy considerations

2017· article· en· W2753011439 on OpenAlexafffund
Amy M. Alberton, Kevin M. Gorey

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Work in Health Care · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsPovertyHealth insuranceHealth careMedicaidMedicineCohortPoverty levelPatient Protection and Affordable Care ActCancerGerontologyNursingPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

America is considering the replacement of Obamacare with Trumpcare. This historical cohort revisited pre-Obamacare colon cancer care among people living in poverty in California (N = 5,776). It affirmed a gender by health insurance hypothesis on nonreceipt of surgery such that uninsured women were at greater risk than uninsured men. Uninsured women were three times as likely as insured women to be denied access to such basic care. Similar men were two times as likely. America is bound to repeat such profound health care inequities if Obamacare is repealed. Instead, Obamacare ought to be retained and strengthened in all states, red and blue.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Work in Health CareSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207