MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1944458775

PRIVATE SECTOR IN HEALTH CARE DELIVERY: A REALITY AND A CHALLENGE IN PAKISTAN.

2015· article· en· W1944458775 on OpenAlexaff
Babar Tasneem Shaikh

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsAga Khan Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrivate sectorMedicinePublic sectorHealth careService delivery frameworkPublic healthPublic relationsInternational healthEconomic growthHealth policyNursingService (business)BusinessMarketingPolitical scienceLawEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under performance of the public sector health care system in Pakistan has created a room for private sector to grow and become popular in health service delivery, despite its questionable quality, high cost and dubious ethics of medical practice. Private sector is no doubt a reality; and is functioning to plug many weaknesses and gaps in health care delivery to the poor people of Pakistan. Yet, it is largely unregulated and unchecked due to the absence of writ of the state. In spite of its inherent trait of profit making, the private sector has played a significant and innovative role both in preventive and curative service provision. Private sector has demonstrated great deal of responsiveness, hence creating a relation of trust with the consumers of health in Pakistan, majority of who spend out of their pocket to buy 'health'. There is definitely a potential to engage and involve private and non-state entities in the health care system building their capacities and instituting regulatory frameworks, to protect the poor's access to health care system.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations50
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207