MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977304798 · doi:10.2105/ajph.2019.305353

Single-Payer, Multiple-Payer, and State-Based Financing of Health Care: Introduction to the Special Section

2019· editorial· en· W2977304798 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Donnelly, Paul C. Erwin, Daniel M. Fox, Colleen M. Grogan

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthLibrary scienceState (computer science)GerontologyHealth careSection (typography)SociologyMedicinePolitical scienceFamily medicineNursingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Single-Payer, Multiple-Payer, and State-Based Financing of Health Care: Introduction to the Special Section Peter D. Donnelly MD, Paul C. Erwin MD, DrPH, Daniel M. Fox PhD, and Colleen Grogan PhD Affiliation Peter D. Donnelly is with the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Paul C. Erwin is with the School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham. Daniel M. Fox is with the Milbank Memorial Fund, New York, NY. Colleen Grogan is with the School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.CopyRightCorrespondence should be sent to Paul C. Erwin, MD, DrPH, Dean and Professor, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1665 University Blvd, RPHB 140B, Birmingham, AL 35294-0022 (e-mail: perwin@uab.edu). Reprints can be ordered at http://www.ajph.org by clicking the "Reprints" link.CONTRIBUTORSAll authors were involved in concept development, writing, reviewing, and finalizing of the editorial. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305353 Accepted: August 15, 2019 Published Online: October 02, 2019

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.005

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Public HealthSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207