MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993548009 · doi:10.1017/s026646230909076x

The “natural history” of health technology assessment

2009· article· en· W1993548009 on OpenAlexaff
Renaldo N. Battista, Matthew Hodge

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiotechnology and Related Fields
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural historyHealth technologyNatural (archaeology)MedicinePolitical scienceHistoryHealth careArchaeologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The collective experience of health technology assessment (HTA) in different countries delineates a pattern of development, a "natural history," of HTA in three phases: emergence, consolidation, and expansion. This study examines the rationale for HTA, definitions of its scope and breadth, its methods and organizational models, and its knowledge translation strategies, as HTA moves from one phase to the next. The study then identifies factors that facilitate or delay the transitions.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0060.063
Scholarly communication0.0120.014
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.366 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations29
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health CareSame topicBiotechnology and Related FieldsFrench-language works237,207