How policy tools evolve in the healthcare sector. Five countries compared
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this work is to investigate which policy tools are used in the governance of the healthcare sector. In particular, we compare the healthcare systems of five OECD countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, England and the Netherlands. The analysis intends to reconstruct the healthcare governance methods implemented in these countries, and understand how they have evolved over the last thirty years. Throughout this work, policy tools are subdivided into four categories: direct provision, regulation, financing and information. Direct provision remains the prevailing mode of governance in the English healthcare system. All of the five countries studied in this work make extensive use of regulation. Insurer regulation is particularly stringent in Germany, the Netherlands and Australia. Of the countries examined, those that make the greatest use of financial leverage seem to be Australia and Canada. England and the Netherlands are the two countries that focus most on informative policy tools.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it