MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009802632 · doi:10.3386/w8523

Household Responses to Public Home Care Programs

2001· report· en· W2009802632 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Peter C. Coyte, Mark Stabile

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2001
Typereport
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsCanadian Foundation for Healthcare ImprovementUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Health Services Research Foundation
KeywordsBusinessDemographic economicsPublic economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A choice-theoretic model of household decision-making with respect to care-giving time allocations and the use of publicly and privately financed home care services is proposed.Predictions concerning the effect of increased availability of publicly financed home care services on home care utilization, informal care-giving, and health status are derived.These predictions are assessed through use of Canadian inter-provincial survey data on home care use and care-giving that are matched with data on home care funding for the period 1992 to 1998.Increased availability of publicly financed home care is associated with an increase in its utilization and a decline in informal care-giving, with this effect more pronounced among lower income Canadians.While self-reported health status was positively correlated with the increased availability of publicly financed home care, the perceived need for home care was invariant to this change.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.701
GPT teacher head0.656
Teacher spread0.045 · 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 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

Citations19
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207