MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Health Insurance Literacy of Older Adults

2009· article· en· W2019521164 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Affairs · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health Outcomes
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth literacyTerminologyConstruct (python library)Actuarial sciencePsychologyMeasure (data warehouse)Construct validityLiteracyGerontologyBusinessApplied psychologyMedicineHealth carePsychometricsClinical psychologyEconomicsComputer scienceEconomic growthPedagogyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We developed an instrument to measure dimensions of health insurance literacy reflecting familiarity with health insurance terminology and proficiency with the Medicare program. The instrument's items were based on a conceptual framework integrating the financial and health insurance literacy fields and were fielded in a national survey of older adults. We found that overall levels of health insurance literacy were low to moderate. The oldest adults, those with lower education and income, and those with poorer health had lower levels of health insurance literacy. The items demonstrated good psychometric properties and construct validity. They are a promising way to measure selected aspects of health insurance literacy.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.306 · 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