MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2299937594 · doi:10.1586/14737167.2016.1165608

Advantages and disadvantages of discrete-event simulation for health economic analyses

2016· editorial· en· W2299937594 on OpenAlexaff
J. Jaime, Jörgen Möller

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · 2016
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth technologyDiscrete event simulationEconomic evaluationEvent (particle physics)Health economicsActuarial scienceIntervention (counseling)Carry (investment)Public economicsRisk analysis (engineering)Management scienceEnvironmental economicsMedicineComputer scienceEconomicsHealth careEconomic growthNursingSimulationMicroeconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health technology assessments (HTA) are carried out to inform decision-makers of the possible consequences of agreeing to pay for a particular medication or other intervention. To carry out these a...

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)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.282
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.282
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0100.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.302
GPT teacher head0.706
Teacher spread0.403 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations55
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes ResearchSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207