MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113223130 · doi:10.1177/1440783313500855

Investigations of trust in public and private healthcare in Australia: A qualitative study of patients with heart disease

2013· article· en· W2113223130 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of sociology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistrustHealth careGovernment (linguistics)Qualitative researchPublic relationsPublic healthBusinessSociologyPublic administrationMedicineNursingPolitical scienceLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Australian healthcare system is complex, comprised of public services (universal access via Medicare) and private health insurance options (fee-for-service). This article presents data from a qualitative study investigating patients’ trust in Medicare and private healthcare in Adelaide, Australia. Interviews were conducted with 37 patients with coronary heart disease between October 2008 and September 2009. The findings suggest that private health insurance holders are fearful and distrusting of public healthcare. Additionally, the findings indicate that both public and private healthcare users are concerned about, and many are distrustful of, the role of government in public healthcare services. These findings are discussed in relation to Niklas Luhmann’s social theories of trust, which provide an analytic framework for understanding private health insurance subscribers’ distrust in Medicare.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.220 · 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