MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241149110 · doi:10.24124/2020/59063

Out of pocket expenditures on healthcare across Canadian provinces

2020· dissertation· en· W4241149110 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Emmanuel Ogwal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusMicrodata (statistics)Health careGeographyEnvironmental healthSocioeconomicsDemographic economicsBusinessMedicineDemographyEconomic growthEconomicsSociologyCensusPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Out of pocket (OOP) healthcare expenditures can be burdening for persons of low socioeconomic status. Little is known about socioeconomic, demographic, and health disparity in OOP healthcare expenditures in Canada. This thesis examines the trends of OOP healthcare expenditures during the 2004-2015 period in Canadian provinces using microdata files from the Canadian Research Data Center through the University of Northern British Columbia, and describes the association of OOP healthcare expenditures with various socioeconomic, demographic, and pre-existing health factors. It also estimates the contribution of these factors to the share of OOP healthcare expenditures to incomes. Regression results reveal that the share of OOP healthcare expenditures to incomes are negatively related to income, but positively related to old age, being married, larger household sizes, and pre-existing health conditions. Also, OOP healthcare expenditures are generally higher for female Canadians, and for persons residing in the provinces of Quebec, Alberta and New Brunswick.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.426 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207