MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333219440 · doi:10.1300/j031v14n03_02

State Discretion and Medicaid Program Variation in Long-Term Care

2002· article· en· W2333219440 on OpenAlex
Edward Miller

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging & Social Policy · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Services and Policy Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicaidStatuteDiscretionLong-term careVariation (astronomy)State (computer science)Administrative discretionGovernment (linguistics)Devolution (biology)BusinessPublic administrationPolitical sciencePublic economicsHealth careMedicineLawEconomicsNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although federal statutes and regulations establish the broad parameters within which state Medicaid programs operate, the federal government grants states substantial discretion over Medicaid and Medicaid-funded long-term care. An appreciation of resulting cross-state variation in Medicaid program characteristics, however, has been lacking in the ongoing debate over whether the federal government should further devolve responsibility for caring for the poor and disabled elderly to the states. To better inform this discussion, therefore, this article documents considerable variation, not only in terms of Medicaid program spending and recipients, but also in terms of strategies chosen to reform long-term care services and financing. Since there is little doubt that states take full advantage of current levels of discretion, advocates of devolution may want to reassess their views to consider whether existing variation has resulted in inequities addressable only through more, not less, federal involvement.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.389 · 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