Spatial Access to Sexual Health Clinics Measured Through a Novel Accessibility Score in Toronto, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding spatial access to sexual health services will provide the foundation for future resource planning and allocation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential geographic access to sexual health services in Toronto, Canada, by developing a novel accessibility index to sexual health clinics. METHODS: We created an accessibility index using the 2-step floating catchment area method to quantify neighborhood-level access to sexual health clinics. The index assumed mixed modes of urban travel through walking and public transit, as well as through driving, and was estimated at the census tract level. RESULTS: Census tracts were grouped into quantiles by the estimated accessibility score. Census tracts with higher accessibility scores were characterized as those with greater residential instability and lower dependency and ethnic concentration. The downtown core area has all census tracts categorized as medium, high, or very high (average [SD] score, 1.320 [0.312]), whereas the noncore area has 56.98%, 302 of 530 census tracts categorized as medium, high, or very high (average [SD] score, -0.105 [0.960]). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the benefit of using statistical methods to quantify the geographical access to sexual health services and identified neighborhoods with high and low levels of access. Findings from this study present an overview of the level of spatial access to sexual health clinics in Toronto based on clinic locations in 2018 and can be further used to characterize neighborhoods with a lower level of access and inform policy and planning decisions in the city.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".