Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this article is to investigate the extrinsic goals hypothesis in time tradeoff (TTO). The extrinsic goal of interest here is seeing children through to maturity. In TTO, the time it takes to attain this goal becomes a target life expectancy, with no trades happening below the critical value implied by the target, no matter how severe the health state. METHODS: A combined quantitative and qualitative approach was used to elicit values for 4 EQ-5D states from 30 recent mothers. The qualitative analysis allowed the researchers to explore with participants whether a target life expectancy was being used. RESULTS: The differences in the visual analogue scale and TTO scores of the mothers compared with the general population suggest that the mothers value life-years differently than the general population does. The finding was also consistent with the target life expectancy hypothesis. However, the interview data were not so strongly supportive of the target life expectancy hypothesis. Although some women suggested this had motivated their responses to the TTO, the interviews paint a more complicated and nuanced picture of what drives a person's responses to health valuation surveys. CONCLUSIONS: A higher value was assigned to life-years relative to quality of life by recent parents, but there was no reduction in the willingness to trade per se. Parenthood affects how much one will trade for better health but not whether one will trade in the 1st place. This conclusion became apparent only when the qualitative and quantitative data were combined.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".