Lieux, pôles et périphéries : l'espace professionnel des médecins en Cascadie (Amérique du Nord)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to health care treatment in fair conditions is a major societal claim in all western societies. In Cascadia (Canadian province of British Columbia and American state of Washington), finding a territorial equity is all the more unlikely since these territories are immense and their populations are spread out unevenly throughout the entire area. This regional geography dissertation touches upon the health care offer in Cascadia and through its human and social geography approach intends to draw a diachronic and dynamic survey of physician's professional practice, to emphasize possible spatial inequalities regarding health care delivery and to assess their evolution through time and it aims at doing so on either side of a border separating two states with vastly different social policy. The purpose of this dissertation is to assess the offer in terms of euclidean distance as well as “social” distance, ince “the hierarchy of distances is often a social hierarchy”. The pluriscalar approach (region, local areas vs city networks and metropolises) should enable to bring forward and assess discontinuities within the different scales of theoretical recourse to care. The purpose of this dissertation is also to emphasize possible links in between areas with different scales, which is the preliminary step to any policy aiming at regulareting the health care offer and at setting up sanitary areas or regions. From the plethoric offer encountered in the metropolises to the sanitary desert of the outskirts, each area provides different types of reality which are specific to it but which must be integrated within the holistic framwrok of a public health policy aiming at providing “health care for all”.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".