MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Using Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Improve Health Care: Opportunities and Barriers

2004· book· en· W1810575444 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter J. Neumann

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2004
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvice (programming)Promotion (chess)PoliticsResistance (ecology)Health carePolitical scienceMedicinePublic relationsLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Introduction 2. The promise and promotion of CEA 3. Resistance to CEA in the United States 4. Understanding the resistance 5. Legal, political and ethical concerns 6. Lessons from Oregon 7. Does anyone in America really use CEA? Examples from the field 8. Cost-effective analysis abroad 9. Imagining a future for CEA 10. Advice for CEA practitioners 11. Advice for policy makers and politicians

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)0.232
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.315
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2320.315
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.017
Scholarly communication0.0280.036
Open science0.0050.012
Research integrity0.0080.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.390
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.093 · 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.

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

Citations103
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→