MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2066437912 · doi:10.12927/hcpap.2013.23219

Nudging for Health: Do We Need Financial Incentives?

2012· letter· en· W2066437912 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Vivek Goel

Bibliographic record

VenueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNudge theoryIncentiveChoice architecturePublic economicsPsychological interventionEconomicsBusinessFinancePsychologyMedicineMicroeconomicsSocial psychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nudges, creating simple processes or structures that guide people toward a particular behaviour choice, are potentially a powerful tool for health promotion. User financial incentives could be a monetary form of such nudges. Given the challenges of chronic disease prevention, interventions such as nudges should be explored further. However, there would appear to be limited rationale for pursuing financial incentives as nudges.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.016
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0820.077
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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 head0.215
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy→Same topicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations→French-language works237,207→