MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1976315764 · doi:10.1136/bmj.a1872

Moving forward on rationing: an economic view

2008· article· en· W1976315764 on OpenAlexaff
Cam Donaldson, Angela Bate, Peter Brambleby, Howard Waldner

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaIsland HealthUniversity of Calgary
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsRationingHealth care rationingEconomicsPositive economicsActuarial scienceLaw and economicsMedicineHealth careEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twelve years ago (BMJ 1996;312:1553-4) the BMJ argued that health systems needed to be explicit about rationing and published articles describing different ways of rationing fairly. Here a clinician (doi:10.1136/bmj.a1846), two ethicists (doi:10.1136/bmj.a1850), and four health economists discuss how their ideas have developed—and been put into practice—since then

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.027
Scholarly communication0.0100.020
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0140.017
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 head0.431
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.026 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→