MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2261531104 · doi:10.4172/2327-5146.1000s2-001

Health Care Systems and Resources Generation - Few Reflections from Some Western Countries

2015· article· en· W2261531104 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shahzad Ali Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueGeneral Medicine Open Access · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth carePolitical scienceGeographyEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Healthcare system is continuously changing and remodelling in both the developed and emerging economies due to many reasons such as increasing economic instability, demographic changes, inflation and unemployment.Under these circumstances definitely one of the major issues which are far complex yet of core importance is the generation of the funds and resources to handle the predicted health care needs of the societies.The situation in developed nations are different from developing nations because better health facilities in these countries itself create demands for more funds allocations and enhanced strategies.For example increased life expectancy rates means more aged populations requiring increased demand for health services.Modern and better technologies and newer effective medicines themselves require more finance allocation because of their increased cost.Persons on continuous drug treatment are also increasing to keep disease under control (Prevalence increased).This is true for many chronic diseases like AIDS, cancers, cystic fibrosis etc.All these examples generate augmented financial pressures which are the direct result of better health care facilities.Currently many Western countries practice distinctly different health care system where diversity in the method of funds generation is obvious.Out of these Single-payer health care, Universal Health Care System and compulsory insurance systems are of special note which are dominantly observed in most of the Western countries including USA, Canada, Australia and European countries.In this article the salient features of these systems in current scenario, along with few notes about its utilization to attain operational consistency is discussed.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.336
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.113 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneral Medicine Open Access→Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→