MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040946909 · doi:10.1071/ah090176

PBS reform — a missed opportunity?

2009· article· en· W2040946909 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca de Boer

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Health Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicPharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsLibrary of Parliament
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormularyPharmaceutical Benefits SchemeHealth economicsGovernment (linguistics)Population healthPharmaceutical policyBusinessPublic economicsEconomicsMedicineHealth careHealth policyPharmacologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) reform package was announced in 2006 and was designed to save the government significant expenditure on the PBS through mandatory price cuts and price disclosure arrangements for multi-brand products. Perhaps most significantly, the formulary was spilt in two with no linkages between the formularies on either price or therapeutic outcome. This article examines the potential impact of these changes on the PBS and pharmaceutical policy in Australia more broadly.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0030.004

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 head0.374
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.051 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Health ReviewSame topicPharmaceutical Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207