MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6903230610 · doi:10.11575/prism/3074

A descriptive study of the Canadian population with schizophrenia

2009· other· en· W6903230610 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2009
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PopulationHealth carePopulation healthCommunity healthPublic healthDiagnosis of schizophreniaDescriptive researchMental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Schizophrenia occurs throughout the world, with a prevalence thought to be approximately 1% of the population over the age of 18.In 2004, there were an estimated 234,305 people in Canada with Schizophrenia.Previous research has found that those with Schizophrenia have poor physical health compared to the general population.Health determinants and their use of health care services may also differ in people with Schizophrenia.Purpose: The main goal of this study was to describe certain health status indicators, health determinants, and health care service use among Canadian household residents with Schizophrenia.Methods: The Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 3.1 Master file was analyzed.There was a total sample size of 132,947 with 405 who reported being diagnosed with schizophrenia.Results: Overall those with Schizophrenia had a poorer health status, more comorbid health conditions, a more problematic profile of determinants of health and more unmet health care needs than the general population.However, they were not less likely to have a regular family physician or to engage in a set of preventive activities.

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)0.002
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)→French-language works237,207→