MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1511926630

Twenty-five years of health law through the lens of the civil false claims act.

2010· article· en· W1511926630 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joan H. Krause

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFalse Claims ActLawSpanish Civil WarGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceEnforcementHealth careLaw enforcementQuarter (Canadian coin)Public administrationHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among the most striking health law developments in the last quarter-century has been the increasing focus on health care and abuse. Times have changed, perhaps illustrated nowhere as clearly as in the expanding role of the Civil False Claims Act (FCA). Thanks to major amendments in 1986, the FCA now lies at the heart of the federal government'swar on health care fraud. This article reviews these changes in the FCA, from its origins as a tool to ward off rampant fraud on the Union Army during the Civil War, through the amendments made in the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (FERA).

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.034
Scholarly communication0.0110.013
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0150.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207