MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193292419 · doi:10.1080/11287462.2021.1966974

Free healthcare for some, fee-paying for the rest: adaptive practices and ethical issues in rural communities in the district of Boulsa, Burkina Faso

2021· article· en· W3193292419 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Bioethics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsCognitive dissonanceThematic analysisHealth careCompliance (psychology)SocioeconomicsNursingPublic relationsEconomic growthQualitative researchBusinessPsychologyPolitical scienceMedicineSociologySocial psychologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 20) were conducted with healthcare personnel and mothers of young children. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and a thematic content analysis was conducted. The study reveals the presence of practices to circumvent strict compliance with the eligibility criteria for free access. These include hiding the exact age of children over 60 months and using eligible persons for the benefit of others. These practices result from ethical and economic tensions experienced by the beneficiaries. They also raise dilemmas among healthcare providers, who have to enforce compliance with the eligibility criteria while realizing the households' deprivation. Informal adjustments are introduced at the community level to reconcile the healthcare providers' dissonance. Local reinvention mechanisms help in overcoming ethical tensions and in implementing the policy.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.312 · 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