MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1965991105 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1041640

More arithmetic of health care

2005· letter· en· W1965991105 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
R.Y. McMurtry

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevenueHealth careComputer scienceArithmeticFinanceBusinessEconomicsMathematicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Janice MacKinnon's commentary[1][1] is a classic: her arguments are resilient, used time and again regardless of their flaws. It is all about the denominator, which in this case is revenue. Health care expenditures are indeed rising faster than revenues — that is apt to happen when revenues are

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.019
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0340.053
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.008

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→