Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public subsidy of private hospital services, either directly or through private health insurance, is a controversial policy issue. The Romanow's review of Canadian medical and hospital services rejected suggestions that the use of for-profit private hospitals would help to improve the efficiency of Canadian services. He cited studies of health services in the United States that raised doubts about the benefits of the use of for-profit hospitals in the neighbour country. In view of the similarity of the public funding of medical and hospital care in Australia and Canada and the Canadian stance, it is useful to examine the various impacts of policy thrusts in Australia that promoted the expansion of private health insurance for private hospital use. This paper adds to the findings of a number of analysts concerned with efficiency and equity questions, through the examination of trends in the capacity and use of hospital services in Australia in the ten year period 1997-2007. Further, it provides an analysis of the relative specialisation of public and private hospital services, to assess whether the set of policy measures has been associated with the expansion of the range of services in private hospitals that might substitute for those provided by the public sector.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".