Healthcare-financing reforms in transitional society: a Shanghai experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1950s, China has had a very wide coverage of healthcare service at the local level. In urban areas, the employment-based healthcare-insurance schemes (Government Insurance Scheme and Labour Insurance Scheme) worked hand in hand with the full employment policy of the Government, which guaranteed basic care for almost every urban resident. However, since the economic reforms of the early 1980s, China's healthcare system has met great challenges. Some came from the reform of the labour system, and other challenges came from the introduction of market forces in the healthcare sector. The new policy of the Chinese Government on the Urban Employees' Basic Health Care Insurance is to introduce a cost-sharing plan in urban China. Like other major social policy changes, this new health policy also has a great impact on the lives of the Chinese people. Affordability has been the major concern among urban residents. Shanghai implemented the cost-sharing healthcare policy in the spring of 2001. It may be too early to assess the pros and cons of the new policy, but evidence shows that the employment-based health-insurance scheme excludes those at high risk and in most need. It is argued that the cost-sharing healthcare system will limit access by some people, especially those who are most vulnerable to the consequences of ill health and those in low-income groups, unless the deductibles vary according to income and unless low-income groups are exempt from paying premiums and deductibles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".