MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994227548

A Pacific population's access to and use of health services in Dunedin.

2012· article· en· W2994227548 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Faafetai Sopoaga, Lianne Parkin, Andrew Gray

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAthletic Training and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSamoanQuarter (Canadian coin)Health servicesService (business)PopulationPacific islandersHealth carePrimary carePrimary health careFamily medicineNursingEnvironmental healthEconomic growthBusinessGeographyMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pacific peoples in New Zealand (mostly of Samoan, Tongan, or Cook Islands origin) have poor health compared to the total New Zealand population. Understanding their access to and use of health services is important in resolving this. METHOD: A survey of Pacific peoples in Dunedin obtained information about their access to and use of health services. RESULTS: 372 questionnaires were analysed. Approximately one-quarter did not have a regular doctor or health service. At least 50% used hospital emergency services for non-urgent illnesses. Nearly two-thirds used a "walk-in" primary care service. DISCUSSION: A significant proportion of Pacific peoples did not have a regular GP or health service in Dunedin. It was surprising students were more likely to be in this category because student health services should be more affordable. A "walk-in" primary care facility has a role in the delivery of primary care services. Pacific organisations can assist primary care providers to encourage access to and the appropriate use of health 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAthletic Training and EducationFrench-language works237,207