MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210808412 · doi:10.1001/amajethics.2022.41

Using GIS to Analyze Inequality in Access to Dental Care in the District of Columbia

2022· article· en· W4210808412 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe AMA Journal of Ethic · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsGeographic information systemGovernment (linguistics)Dental careInequalityGeographyRace (biology)MedicineDentistryCartographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Access to dental care in mixed-race and predominantly African American wards in the District of Columbia (DC) was investigated in relation to community development. METHODS: This study used high-resolution geographic information system (GIS) tools to map all general dentistry and periodontal practice locations in DC wards. The spatial analysis contextualized each ward's land use and demographic data obtained from DC government reports. FINDINGS: The analysis revealed inter-ward inequity in dental care access, which was measured by proximity to and number of dental clinics in each DC ward. Residents in affluent wards had access to many dental practices and superior amenities. Residents in wards poorly served by public transportation and with few resources had few, if any, dental clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Dental practices are inequitably distributed across DC wards. DC policy should prioritize community development-specifically, resource allocation and community outreach-to promote health equity and improve access to and quality of dental care among residents of color.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.332 · 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