MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415304439 · doi:10.18733/cpi29782

Access to Universal Health Care in the Philippines: The Challenges of Ethnicity, Barriers, and Inequities

2025· article· W4415304439 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Vilma Ramos

Bibliographic record

VenueCultural and Pedagogical Inquiry · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsHealth careIndigenousEthnic groupUniversal designFocus groupQualitative researchHealth policyPrimary health care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Universal Health Care Program is one of the cornerstones of the Philippine development directions. Its primary objective is to enhance, and update health reform programs by removing inequities in health outcomes. To assess the efficacy of the program, the study measures access to healthcare services of 371 Indigenous Peoples (IPs) belonging to three different ethnic groups. It used qualitative and quantitative approaches consisting of; interviews, focus group discussions and surveys. Overall, the study reveals that Indigenous Peoples occasionally accessed healthcare services; seldom accessed healthcare facilities and occasionally accessed services provided by healthcare personnel. The study thus recommends that the design of healthcare services be standardized and customized to include IP client’s (IP) health needs, level of education, health demands, geographic locations, cultural practices and socio-economic conditions.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.577
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.113 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCultural and Pedagogical InquirySame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207