MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2021577908 · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7426.1250-a

Bush wins changes in Medicare benefits

2003· article· en· W2021577908 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. Lenzer

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActuarial sciencePsychologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After a bitter legislative fight, the US Congress passed a $395 billion revision of Medicare, the health insurance programme for elderly people, which will come into effect in 2006. The Medicare Drug Benefit bill institutes far-reaching revisions of the popular programme created in 1965. The addition of outpatient prescription drug benefits attracted support from many quarters. But the bill's inclusion of privatisation schemes created a bitter divide with critics charging that the bill is the first step toward the dismantling of Medicare. President George Bush's administration supported the bill saying its provisions encouraging privatisation create competition that will keep costs down and give elderly people a better range of choices. Soaring drug costs fuelled the battle over changes in Medicare. Drug prices in the United States, often four to 10 times higher than in Canada and Europe, triggered a movement to legalise the reimportation of drugs. But the new Medicare drug plan prohibits both drug reimportation and price negotiations by Medicare. “[This …

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0120.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.012

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ→Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→