MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969163286 · doi:10.1515/1538-0645.1536

Disability Insurance Adjudication Criteria and the Incidence of Hard-to-Diagnose Medical Conditions

2006· article· en· W1969163286 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michele Campolieti

Bibliographic record

VenueThe B E Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdjudicationActuarial scienceIncidence (geometry)Disability insuranceMedicineBusinessPolitical scienceLawSocial securityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract I examine the effects of a change in Canada Pension Plan disability program adjudication criteria on individual reports of medical problems. The estimates from this paper suggest that more stringent screening requirements are associated with a statistically significant decline in the reports of hard-to-diagnose conditions, such as low back pain. On the other hand, my estimates also indicate that changes in adjudication requirements do not have a statistically significant effect on the reports of easier to diagnose conditions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe B E Journal of Economic Analysis & PolicySame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207