MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414415990 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2025.112085

A geocoded dataset of primary health care clinics in Brazil

2025· article· en· W4414415990 on OpenAlexaff
Bruno Wichmann, Roberta Moreira Wichmann, Crysttian Arantes Paixão

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeocodingMerge (version control)GeoreferencePrimary careHealth carePrimary health carePublic healthHealth geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We develop a geocoded dataset of primary health care clinics in Brazil. We merge data from three publicly available sources. The first is the National Registry of Healthcare Facilities (CNES-ST), which collects the location (state, municipality, and 8-digit postal code) of all health care facilities, public or private, operating in Brazil. The second is the National Registry of Addresses for Statistical Purposes (IBGE-CNEFE), which contains the geographic coordinates of all addresses in Brazil (including 8-digit postal codes) and serves as the basis for the Brazilian census. Our approach aggregates individual (address-level) coordinates to the 8-digit postal code, and assigns coordinates to primary care clinics based on each clinics' postal code. Using data from a third source, the IBGE shapefiles, we estimate the area of postal codes to evaluate the precision of our geo-referencing method. The unique facility identification number (cnes number) can be used to merge our georeferenced data with other publicly available databases of the Brazilian Unified Health System. The final dataset is an unbalanced panel with monthly observations about 293,698 primary care clinics' locations (i.e. coordinates), from January 2018 to December 2023, totalling 15,455,219 observations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.413 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicMaternal and Neonatal HealthcareFrench-language works237,207