MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013931263 · doi:10.1007/s10903-020-01003-8

Predictors of Unmet Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine Need Among Persons of Sub-Saharan African Origin Living in the Greater Toronto Area

2020· article· en· W3013931263 on OpenAlexaffabout
Prince M. Amegbor, Mark W. Rosenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Immigrant and Minority Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusImmigrationPublic healthMedicineEnvironmental healthHealth careGerontologyCross-sectional studyGeographyPopulationNursingEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our study seeks to examine how chronic health status, insurance coverage and socioeconomic factors predict unmet traditional, complementary and alternative medicine (TCAM) needs among immigrants from sub-Saharan African origin living in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The data for the study comes from a cross-sectional questionnaire survey of 273 sub-Saharan African immigrants living in the GTA. ~ 21% of respondents surveyed had unmet TCAM needs in the 12-month period prior to the survey. Persons with chronic health conditions, lower socioeconomic status, and those with previous history of TCAM use before immigrating were more likely to have unmet TCAM need. The study suggests that the current TCAM healthcare environment in the GTA limits that ability of sub-Saharan immigrants to meet their healthcare needs, especially persons in most need of such treatments-persons with chronic health conditions and those of lower socioeconomic background.

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 score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Immigrant and Minority HealthSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207