MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986672229 · doi:10.1111/iere.12138

QUANTIFYING THE IMPACTS OF LIMITED SUPPLY: THE CASE OF NURSING HOMES

2015· article· en· W2986672229 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew T. Ching, Fumiko Hayashi, Hui Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Economic Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterfactual thinkingMedicaidNursing homesWelfareOffset (computer science)Demographic economicsQuality (philosophy)EstimationEconomicsBusinessNursingMedicinePsychologyHealth careComputer scienceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article develops a new estimation method that accounts for excess demand and the unobserved component of product quality. We apply our method to study the Wisconsin nursing home market in 1999 and find that nearly 20% of elderly qualified for Medicaid were rationed out. However, our counterfactual experiment shows that the net welfare gain of fulfilling all nursing home demands may be small, because the welfare gain could be largely offset by the increase in Medicaid expenditures. We also find that a 1% increase in quality would crowd out 3.2% Medicaid patients in binding nursing homes.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations49
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Economic ReviewSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207