MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101293754 · doi:10.1016/j.hcmf.2013.04.006

Jugglers, Tightrope Walkers, and Ringmasters: Priority Setting, Allocation, and Reducing Moral Burden

2013· article· en· W2101293754 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Wasylenko

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResource allocationAffect (linguistics)Work (physics)Organizational ethicsBusinessPublic relationsPsychologyPolitical scienceEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health system leaders, engaged in priority setting and resource allocation activities, seek means to make and justify good decisions. Values and ethics considerations can assist, but the work of developing coherent, useful ethics frameworks is just beginning. Ethical foundations underlay substantive and procedural considerations, including the need for genuine citizen involvement in priority setting activities. Difficult decisions that affect citizens, staff, and organizational partners can result in moral burden for health system leaders. Decision making based on co-determined values and inclusive processes can be expected to reduce some of that burden.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207