MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133336536 · doi:10.1142/s0217590808002811

HEALTH SYSTEM REFORM IN CHINA: AN ASSESSMENT OF RECENT TRENDS

2008· article· en· W2133336536 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Åke Blomqvist, Jiwei Qian

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Singapore Economic Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment for International DevelopmentNational University of SingaporeChinese Academy of SciencesUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsChinaEquity (law)Health careBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Health policyHealth care reformPublic economicsEconomic growthOrder (exchange)EconomicsPolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we first briefly review the changes that the Chinese health care system has undergone since the early 1980s. We then describe the major current health policy initiatives in urban and rural areas and discuss likely scenarios for their evolution over time. Using comparisons with international experience regarding different institutional arrangements in the health care sector, we also discuss whether the approaches taken in China are likely to strengthen the health care system in terms of efficiency and equity. Our conclusion is that in order to predict how effectively China's future health care system will perform in the future, one must have more information about what role the state (central government) will play, as regulator, partial funder and direct provider in the system. We believe that the best strategy at present is to allow the development of a mixed model with significant roles for both the state and the private sector, in both the supply of health care services and the provision of health insurance.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Singapore Economic ReviewSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207