MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765006656 · doi:10.12927/hcpap.2016.24584

Funding for Long-Term Care: Why Public Insurance Makes Sense

2016· letter· en· W2765006656 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michel Grignon

Bibliographic record

VenueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)Long-term care insuranceSelection (genetic algorithm)Work (physics)Actuarial sciencePrivate insuranceBusinessPlan (archaeology)Key person insuranceInsurance policyEconomicsHealth insuranceLong-term careHealth careComputer scienceEconomic growthNursingMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adams and Vanin (2016) build a strong case for public support for private insurance in long-term care. Their main argument is that public coverage is not politically feasible. I start with summing up and criticizing their argument. The gist of my criticism is that the success of their plan requires some kind of selection (not everybody buys coverage), and selection is precisely why private insurance does not work for long-term care. I then reframe my preferred policy option: a public scheme financed out of a flat rate or sales tax.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be HealthySame topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207