MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133603760 · doi:10.1215/03616878-2006-006

Policy Challenges in Modern Health Care

2006· article· en· W2133603760 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph White

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Politics Policy and Law · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIconCitationHealth careWhite (mutation)PoliticsWhite paperDownloadLibrary scienceSection (typography)Political scienceLawWorld Wide WebComputer scienceAdvertisingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Book Review| August 01 2006 Policy Challenges in Modern Health Care David Mechanic, Lynn B. Rogut, David C. Colby, and James R. Knickman, eds. Policy Challenges in Modern Health Care. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2005. 276 pp. $23.95 paper. Joseph White Joseph White Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google J Health Polit Policy Law (2006) 31 (4): 848–859. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-2006-006 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Joseph White; Policy Challenges in Modern Health Care. J Health Polit Policy Law 1 August 2006; 31 (4): 848–859. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-2006-006 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsJournal of Health Politics, Policy and Law Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Duke University Press2006 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: Review You do not currently have access to this content.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.005

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations43
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health Politics Policy and LawSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207