MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324633634 · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.681

PHP139 Which Criteria are Considered in Health Care Decisions? Insights from an International Survey of Policy and Clinical Decision Makers

2012· article· en· W2324633634 on OpenAlexaff
Nataly Tanios, Monika Wagner, Michèle Tony, Rob Baltussen, Janine A. van Til, Donna Rindress, Paul Kind, Mireille Goetghebeur

Bibliographic record

VenueValue in Health · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowball samplingHealth careStakeholderContext (archaeology)Actuarial sciencePopulationPsychologyMedicineBusinessEnvironmental healthPublic relationsEconomicsPolitical scienceGeographyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Defining and applying decision criteria are key to accountability and reasonableness in decisionmaking and to ensure the most beneficial allocation of health care resources. Objectives were to gather data on criteria considered by policy and clinical decisionmakers in health care decisions globally.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.577
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.033 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueValue in HealthSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207