MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130416863 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2013.21677

Paying for Technology. The Cost of Ignoring Opportunity Costs

2010· article· en· W2130416863 on OpenAlexaff
Maurice McGregor

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careBest practiceHealth technologyHealth professionalsOperations managementBusinessManagementEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The continuing acquisition and use of new technologies (defined here as the drugs, devices and procedures used by health professionals) is a substantial driver of increasing healthcare costs (Bodenheimer 2005; Fuchs 1996; Newhouse 1993; Schwartz 1987). The cost of new technology acquisition has been variously estimated to make up 39% (Mohr et al. 2001), 50% (Wanless 2001) and 66% (Di Matteo 2005) of the overall annual increase in healthcare spending.

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 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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicICT Impact and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207