MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392978899 · doi:10.26443/mjgh.v9i1.1299

A Health Care System Divided

2020· article· en· W4392978899 on OpenAlexaff
Megan Solomon, Jack Moncado, Mouna Latouf, Mayaluna Bierlich, Gabe Polidori, L. Chen, Diane Sauttter

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Journal of Global Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)Health careHealth equityEconomic growthHealth servicesPopulationProxy (statistics)Rural areaBusinessPolitical scienceMedicineEnvironmental healthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From 1948 to 1994 South Africa was under the repressive Apartheid regime. Among many other actions taken to ensure white South Africans maintained power, the regime put in place discriminatory health policies that deprived black South Africans of equitable health care. As the apartheid era came to an end in 1994, the newly elected African National Congress sought to prioritize equity by creating the National Health Act. Despite this, major disparities in health care persist. Te purpose of this case study is to shed light on such disparities in the South African health system by using maternal health as a proxy. Mothers living in rural areas continually contend with barriers to access, afordability and availability. Rural areas account for about 46% of South Africa’s population but service provision is only 12% and 19% of the nation’s doctors and nurses respectively. The lack of medical professionals in these areas make it difcult for mothers to receive vital procedures, such as emergency obstetric care, without traveling unmanageable distances. Moreover, high transport costs ofset progress made by the elimination of out-of-pocket expenses and continues to make the cost of accessing care prohibitively expensive, accounting at times for 51.4% of household income.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0720.006

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.313 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Journal of Global HealthSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207