MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610324986 · doi:10.1177/0117196817705779

Improving migrants’ access to the public health insurance system in China: A conceptual classification framework

2017· article· en· W2610324986 on OpenAlexaff
Zuyu Huang, Zehan Pan

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian and Pacific migration journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaGovernment (linguistics)Conceptual frameworkBusinessConstruct (python library)Public health insurancePublic healthHealth policyConceptual modelSelf-insuranceIncome protection insuranceEconomic growthHealth insuranceActuarial scienceInsurance policyPublic economicsGeneral insuranceHealth carePolitical scienceEconomicsSociologyMedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the Chinese government has established a public health insurance system covering both rural and urban areas, the rural–urban migrants seem to have been neglected. To have a clear sense of the current status of migrants in the public health insurance system and to find ways to increase their enrollment to medical insurance, this paper attempts to construct a conceptual classification framework of China’s health insurance system. This was done by reviewing the development of China’s health insurance system and identifying barriers to entry for migrants. The finding suggests that migrants’ limited access to health insurance owes more to their reluctance than to system exclusions. The job and residential stability of migrants are critical factors to building the classification framework to account for supply and demand factors in the formulation of China’s health insurance policy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian and Pacific migration journalSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207