MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293214176 · doi:10.7202/1089185ar

L’accessibilité des services sociaux et de santé chez les minorités de langue officielle du Canada et les facteurs influant sur leur accès : une étude de portée

2022· article· fr· W4293214176 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Alexandra Éthier, Annie Carrier

Bibliographic record

VenueMinorités linguistiques et société · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les minorités de langue officielle (MLO) du Canada rencontrent des difficultés d’accès aux services sociaux et de santé (SSS). Or, il n’existe aucun portrait exhaustif des services concernés par ces difficultés et des facteurs (facilitateurs et barrières) qui modulent leur accès. Ainsi, le but de cette étude était de décrire l’accessibilité des SSS et d’identifier les facteurs influant sur l’accès aux SSS pour les MLO canadiennes. Une étude de portée dans neuf banques de données combinée à une stratégie élargie a permis d’inclure 74 documents. Les SSS sont généralement insuffisants pour les MLO. De plus, 15 facteurs (8 facilitateurs, 11 barrières) ont été identifiés. Enfin, 26 connexions (une parmi les facilitateurs, 25 parmi les barrières) ont été notées, complexifiant l’accès aux SSS pour les MLO. Intervenir pour favoriser l’accès aux SSS des MLO pourrait être bénéfique à l’ensemble des populations canadiennes, étant donné la présence de barrières communes entre ces groupes.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.011
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinorités linguistiques et sociétéSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207