Assessing service availability and accessibility of healthcare facilities in Indonesia: A spatially-informed correspondence analysis with visual approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A nation's health status can be determined by the availability of healthcare services, which is a crucial part of human life. Since 2011, health facilities in Indonesia have been acknowledged as an important health indicator. This study uses correspondence analysis and spatial visualization to look at the primary healthcare facilities in each region of Indonesia. The analysis makes use of information from Indonesia's province-level data on the number of Regions with health facilities in 2021, along with six different types of medical facilities: hospitals, maternity hospitals, polyclinics, health centers, sub-district health centers, and pharmacies. To show the spread of medical facilities in Indonesia, a spatial representation is also produced. In comparison to provinces on other islands, the analysis reveals that the provinces on Java Island have a more varied and adequate distribution of healthcare facilities. Health facilities on other islands' provinces, however, are only focused on public health and sub-district public health. The spatial representation gives a clear picture of the distribution of medical services and draws attention to the distinctions across Indonesia's regions and islands. The geographical visualization offers a thorough perspective of the distribution of health care facilities, and this study delivers insightful information about how health care facilities are distributed in Indonesia. Future research and policy decisions targeted at enhancing Indonesia's healthcare system can be informed by these findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".