Bibliographic record
Abstract
SummaryThe objective of this study was to assess the preference and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for inhaled insulin from a random sample of general public perspective in Ontario, Canada. This was carried out using a mail survey using the contingent valuation method. Significantly more respondents preferred inhaled insulin (n=114) over subcutaneous insulin (n=6; p<0.001). The mean monthly WTP for inhaled insulin was CAN$68.59 ± 44.65 (95% confidence interval CAN$58.87–78.07), significantly more than the average subcutaneous insulin cost in Ontario of CAN$50. The WTP for inhaled insulin in the diabetic subgroup was CAN$98.52 ± 48.57, which is significantly higher than that of the general public (p<0.001). Multiple regression analysis showed a strong association between respondents’ income and diagnosis of diabetes and their WTP for inhaled insulin (p<0.001). Major influencing factors were convenience and household budget. The results of this study suggest that the general public in Ontario prefer inhaled insulin and are willing to pay significantly more per month than the current cost of subcutaneous insulin.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".