MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401419620 · doi:10.1038/s41597-024-03691-5

Where should we go - Estimating travel times for modelling accessibility to 24-hour emergency departments in Canada

2024· article· en· W4401419620 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tomoko McGaughey, Paul A. Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsCensusTravel timePopulationGeographyService (business)Transport engineeringSubdivisionHealth careBusinessComputer scienceMedicineEnvironmental healthMarketingEngineeringEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimating travel time to 24-hour emergency services is an important component to modelling accessibility of health services, particularly for rural areas. However, methods used to estimate travel time vary significantly, are not representative of the residential population, and are not openly validated. This makes the assessment of travel-based accessibility metrics between studies incomparable. To address this issue and develop a standardized measurement of emergency service access, this study utilized small geographic units (Dissemination Areas - DA) and geographical boundaries representative of municipal equivalents (Census Subdivision - CSD). Estimated travel times between the centroid of an inhabited DA to each 24-hr emergency department was computed with population-weighted travel times generated for each CSD. This dataset provides a nationally consistent measurement of proximity to emergency services accounting for travel pathing and population distribution. This methodology can be extended to generate estimated shortest travel routes for other healthcare resources or develop actual travel routes based on individuals' experiences with the healthcare system.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207