Evaluation of Public Transport-Based Accessibility to Health Facilities considering Spatial Heterogeneity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ensuring adequate public transport-based accessibility to health facilities in different regions is a major concern of social equity and public health for government. However, the imbalanced spatial distribution of health facilities may lead to an inaccurate evaluation of the accessibility, which is shaped by both land use and transportation. To address this problem, this study proposed a new approach to evaluate the adequacy of public transport-based accessibility to health facilities considering the spatial heterogeneity. First, we obtained the spatial distribution of health facilities based on POI data, calculated the population centroids of census tract-based mobile phone positioning data, and estimated travel times from population centroids to every health facility based on web map services. Second, the public transport-based accessibility to health facilities was measured by the isochrone approach. Then, the spatial heterogeneity of the health facilities was quantified by a spatial proximity index based on the gravity model. At last, a benchmark curve of accessibility vs. spatial proximity was established to evaluate the public transport-based accessibility to health facilities in different areas with spatial heterogeneity. A case study of 218 census tracts in Shanghai was conducted to verify this method. Consequently, we successfully identified the census tracts where the public transport-based accessibility to health facilities is insufficient. It shows that even some census tracts within the central city areas are still short of public transport-based accessibility to health facilities, whereas some tracts in the urban periphery may have adequate public transport-based accessibility even though there are limited health facilities nearby.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".