MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979832209 · doi:10.1002/hec.1563

Hypothetical versus real preferences: results from an opportunistic field experiment

2009· article· en· W1979832209 on OpenAlexaff
Stirling Bryan, Sue Jowett

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Economics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal Health
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsEconomicsField (mathematics)EconometricsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over recent years there has been renewed interest in cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in health care but the 'hypothetical bias' concern (i.e. the belief that WTP values overstate real preferences) is a remaining anxiety. This paper reports new empirical data comparing hypothetical and real preferences in a health care context, using the clinical setting of patient self-management (PSM) of anticoagulation (warfarin) therapy. The data offer considerable support for the use of WTP and CBAs in a self-management health care context; the hypothetical bias hypothesis is not supported by our data. The generalisability of these results to other health care settings needs to be explored.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.320
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.007 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth EconomicsSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207