MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120318548 · doi:10.1017/s1744133115000195

Reflecting on ‘Equity in health care: the Irish perspective’

2015· letter· en· W2120318548 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremiah Hurley

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Economics Policy and Law · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContent (measure theory)IrishEquity (law)Perspective (graphical)BusinessAdvertisingPsychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceLawMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 'Equity in health care: the Irish perspective', Smith and Normand present a fascinating exercise in forensic economics investigating equity in the Irish health system.What, they ask, is the guiding equity definition, or principle, for the Irish health care system?To find out, they examine both stated preferencesthe equity principles espoused in recent Irish health policy documentsand revealed preferencescrucial features in the design of the Irish health care system.Their main findings won't surprise anyone who has been involved in health policy very long.Even in the health policy documents alone, rather than a single guiding equity principle, they find a confusing mix of conflicting equity definitions: "This analysis of one country's policy commitment on equity outlines an unclear, inconsistent and varied definition, … at one point, the strategy is concerned with equality in access and opportunity (to achieve full health potential), at another it is concerned with equality in health status, and at yet another it is concerned with distribution of resources according to need" (Smith and Normand, 2011: 211).Moreover, they find a health care system that, in many respects, is incongruent with the articulated definitions (e.g.high rates of cost sharing that inhibits access to needed care).At least with respect to equity, Irish health policy is rife with irrationality, prompting Smith and Normand to offer the Irish system as a cautionary tale for other countries.One suspects, however, that many other countries would fare little better under such scrutiny.The precise nature of the irrationalities and inconsistencies would differ, but they would no doubt be present.There are, of course, many reasons for the inconsistencies that Smith and Normand discover, especially those between the stated equity definitions and the actual system design.At any point in time a system design reflects an amalgam of historical decisions made in varying contexts by different governments that pursued differing equity objectives.Any single government cannot simply

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.039
Scholarly communication0.0210.020
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0110.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.198 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Economics Policy and LawSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207