Attachment to primary care and team-based primary care: Retrospective cohort study of people who experienced imprisonment in Ontario.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine attachment to primary care and team-based primary care in the community for people who experienced imprisonment in Ontario, and to compare these attachment data with data for the general population. DESIGN: Population-based retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: All persons released from provincial prison in Ontario to the community in 2010 who were linked with provincial health administrative data, and an age- and sex-matched general population group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary care attachment and team-based primary care attachment in the 2 years before admission to provincial prison (baseline) and in the 2 years after release in 2010 (follow-up) for the prison release group, and for the corresponding periods for the general population group. RESULTS: < .001), respectively. CONCLUSION: People who experience imprisonment have lower primary care attachment compared with the general population. Efforts should be made to understand barriers and to facilitate access to high-quality primary care for this population, including through initiatives to link people while in prison with primary care in the community.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".