MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386574279 · doi:10.1177/11771801231194585

Role of bilingual guides in access to health care among Indigenous Wayuu population of Colombia

2023· article· en· W4386574279 on OpenAlexaff
Javier Mignone, Beda Suárez Aguilar, Aynslie Hinds, Yercine Duarte, Dorian Ospina, John Harold Gómez Vargas

Bibliographic record

VenueAlterNative An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousHealth carePopulationMedicineEnvironmental healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anas Wayuu is an Indigenous-led non-profit health insurance organization in Colombia. It provides health care coverage to approximately 220,000 people, mostly Indigenous Wayuu, the largest Indigenous population in Columbia, living in La Guajira, the northeast region of the country, and in neighboring Venezuela. Anas Wayuu offers several intercultural health initiatives, among them the inclusion of bilingual guides for Wayuu families. The objective of the study was to describe the use of Anas Wayuu’s bilingual guides and determine whether use was associated with access and quality of care. A 34-item survey was conducted in 2020 to 2021 with a final sample of 2,113 Anas Wayuu enrollees and non-enrollees. Study findings demonstrated the relevance of bilingual guides programming. They suggested that bilingual guides improved individual’s capabilities to navigate the health care system, increased access to care, and increased their experience of quality of care. The findings strengthen the case for Indigenous self-governance over health care.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.418 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlterNative An International Journal of Indigenous PeoplesSame topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207