MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886505318 · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0179

Scope Of Primary Care Physicians’ Participation In The Health Insurance Marketplaces

2018· article· en· W2886505318 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Polsky, Molly Candon, Paula Chatterjee, Xinwei Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Affairs · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Services and Policy ResearchInstitute of Health Economics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)MedicaidBusinessAuditHealth insurancePrimary careSelf-insuranceHealth careActuarial scienceFamily medicineMedicineAccountingEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Millions of Americans have purchased health insurance through the Marketplaces, but their access to care is not well understood. Using an audit study, we compared the scope of primary care physicians' participation in Marketplace plans to that in other insurance types in 2016. Across ten diverse states, rates of participation in Marketplace plans were higher than those in Medicaid, but lower than those in employer-sponsored insurance.

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)0.000
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 score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.261 · 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.

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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth AffairsSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207