Advancing Urban Healthcare Equity Analysis: Integrating Public Participation GIS with Fuzzy Best–Worst Decision-Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study provides an innovative collaborative spatial decision support system (SDSS) that aims to ensure an equitable spatial distribution of healthcare services. Evaluating the equality of access to health services across different geographical areas is important, as it requires the analysis of various criteria such as the proximity of health centres and hospitals (HCHs), the quality of services offered, connectivity to primary roads, the availability of public transportation hubs, and the density and distribution patterns of HCHs. This purpose is accomplished via the use of geographic information systems (GIS) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods. The proposed model includes the weights of the criteria, which are determined through the ordered weighted average (OWA) and evaluated based on their ORness, which ranges from 0 to 1. Furthermore, this model is improved by the best–worst fuzzy method (F-BWM). This approach produces a spatial map that clearly shows the equity of healthcare systems in urban environments. The findings show that the maximum score observed in this study was 0.38% (with an ORness value of 1), whilst the minimum score recorded was 0.28%. In the most severe scenario (ORness = 0), over 70% of the region shows different degrees of fairness, ranging from moderate to suitable and very suitable conditions. Governments and health authorities can use this information strategically to allocate resources and address inequities in access to healthcare facilities.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".