MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761391210 · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0235

Freestanding Emergency Departments Preferentially Locate In Areas With Higher Household Income

2017· article· en· W2761391210 on OpenAlexaff
Cedric Dark, Yingying Xu, Vivian Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Affairs · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Economics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrodata (statistics)Logistic regressionYield (engineering)BusinessHousehold incomeDemographic economicsGeographyMedicineEnvironmental healthEconomicsCensus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Freestanding emergency departments (EDs) are a relatively novel phenomenon, and the epicenter of this movement is in Texas. Limited evidence exists about the communities in which freestanding EDs locate or the possible reasons behind location choice. We estimated logistic regressions to determine whether freestanding EDs in 2016 were more likely to be in areas of high demand or in those that could yield high profits. When we compared Public Use Microdata Areas that contained freestanding EDs and those that did not, we found that areas with such EDs had significantly higher household incomes. This finding was driven by the location choices of independent freestanding emergency centers and not by those of hospital-affiliated satellite emergency centers.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

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

Citations23
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth AffairsSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207