MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Sensory Health and Universal Health Coverage in Canada

2024· preprint· en· W4403903147 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hanna Asheber, Renu Minhas, Ved Hatolkar, Atul Jaiswal, Walter Wittich

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensory systemUniversal coverageBusinessComputer scienceHealth carePsychologyHealth policyEconomicsNeuroscienceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: The World Federation of the Deafblind Global Report 2023 reports that many countries do not have a comprehensive identification, assessment, and referral system for persons with deafblindness, a combination of hearing and vision loss, across all age groups and geographic regions. The scan seeks to inform researchers, policymakers, and community-based organizations about the status of and gaps in sensory healthcare initiatives in Canada, with intent to raise awareness to enhance integration and coordination of eye and ear care services. Methods: We conducted an environmental scan of Canada’s healthcare system and current public health policies addressing vision and hearing care in Canada at federal and provincial levels. The scan was conducted using published literature searches from five scientific databases – Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed and CINAHL, in combination with the grey literature review of federal, provincial, and territorial government and non-profit organizations websites during April-October 2022. Out of 1257 articles screened, 82 studies included that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. 13 reports were included in the grey literature search. Results: Thematic findings indicate stigma and discrimination towards individuals with disabilities and marginalized groups, including hearing, vision, or dual sensory loss, persist. Barriers to vision and hearing healthcare access include inadequate policies, underinvestment in vision and/or hearing services, limited collaboration and coordinated services between hearing and vision services, discrepancies in insurance coverages, and lack of health system support. Conclusions: This scan demonstrates the persistent barriers to vision and/or hearing services present in Canada, stemming from inadequate policy and limited-service coordination. Future work to address gaps, evaluate public education, and develop integrated sensory health care initiatives to enhance coordinate eye and ear care services as recommended in WHO Report on Hearing and Vision is imperative.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.022
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.000

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.164 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.org→Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→