MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123436143 · doi:10.1017/s0963180112000527

Appeals to Individual Responsibility for Health

2013· article· en· W2123436143 on OpenAlexaff
Kristin Voigt

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContent (measure theory)Internet privacySocial responsibilityPublic relationsBusinessPsychologyComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent debates about the distribution of health care resources, the notion of individual responsibility has received an increasing amount of attention, in philosophical discussions,1 health policy documents,2 as well as public debates.3 On the one hand, the suggestion that individuals should be held responsible for health care costs that can in some way be attributed to their own choices has become a controversial aspect of the debate about health resource allocation and rationing. On the other hand, there have also been (less controversial) suggestions that individuals should be encouraged to take greater responsibility for their health so as to avoid diseases that result from, or are made more likely by, certain behaviours.[...]

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.017
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0160.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.003

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations53
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge Quarterly of Healthcare EthicsSame topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207