Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the health economics literature, the demand for health and market health inputs is dominated by adaptations of Grossman's health capital model. The model has been widely used to explore a wide range of issues related to health, socioeconomic inequalities in health, demand for medical care, health preventions, occupational choice, and retirement decisions. The commodity of health is viewed as a durable capital stock that yields a flow of healthy time or illness-free time, that depreciates with age, and that can be augmented with the help of market health inputs and own time. The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive critical review of the model. Underlying Grossman's model are a faulty conceptual framework and assumptions that tend to exaggerate the degree of control consumers/patients may have over their state of health and survival. The assumption of full information about one's state of health and the efficacy of various health inputs abstracts away from the problems posed by the agency relationship under uncertainty and informational asymmetry. Grossman's individualistic and mechanistic view of health strips health capital and its production of much of their biological/physiological content and their interactions with the individual's social and physical environment.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".