MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389896105 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2023.109979

Data on gender-equitable healthcare accessibility in Northern Nigeria

2023· article· en· W4389896105 on OpenAlexaff
Chika Yinka-Banjo, Mary Akinyemi, Olasupo Ajayi, David Tresner‐Kirsch

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Sudbury
FundersUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsResearch articleHealth careGeographyComputer scienceData sciencePolitical scienceLibrary scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gender equity, particularly in healthcare, has been gaining increasing attention in recent years. The goal is to ensure that everyone has equal access to quality healthcare services irrespective of age, gender, or socio-economic status. However, most countries in sub-Saharan Africa struggle to meet this goal, due to several challenges, including poverty, poor infrastructure, and gender-bias. Using Nigeria as a case-study, it is common knowledge that gender inequality and discrimination is predominant in the northern region of the country. This work sought to gather data to assess the level of healthcare accessibility from a gender-based perspective in northern Nigeria. Data were sourced anonymously from residents in about 500 locations across the northern region of Nigeria, using WhatsApp-based questionnaires, in two phases and two languages - English and Hausa. About 4700 participants took part in the survey and each had to answer 43 questions, split into demographic, socio-economic, wellness check, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in health care services obtained.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.367
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207