MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086051048 · doi:10.1172/jci40987

Right to reform

2009· article· en· W2086051048 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arthur L. Caplan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Investigation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

then get very expensive care, costs that the hospitals recoup by averaging out over all their other, insured customers.So there are plenty of problems to be solved.Perhaps the first step toward solving them is for an appreciation that there are proven ways of delivering health care that is both cheaper and better for most of the population than the current style in the US.There is no need to look across the Atlantic, where cultures are different.Just look closer, north, to Canada.The Canadians are all insured, there are no health care bankruptcies, and they live longer than in the US.There is a strong case for major reform: it should provide a win for health and a win for the economy.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0110.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0810.027

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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.204 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical InvestigationSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207