MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013125907 · doi:10.34069/ai/2020.27.03.39

Aspects of legal regulation of the provision of medical services

2020· article· en· W3013125907 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Олександр Шевчук, Volodymyr Maryniv, Yuliia Mеkh, O. V. SHOVKOPLIAS, Oksana Saichuk

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Amazonia Investiga · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationLegalizationUkrainianBusinessConstitutionLegislatureLegal researchService (business)Human servicesHuman rightsPolitical scienceLawPublic relationsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article focuses on the need to respect human rights in the provision of medical services in Ukraine. It is strictly unacceptable to restrict citizens of Ukraine in receiving free medical services, since such a right is provided for by Art. 49 of the Constitution of Ukraine. It is proposed to consider that a medical service includes all types of medical care and is a special activity in relation to human health. The concept and main signs of medical services are revealed, it is established that the state, local governments, legal entities and individuals, including the patient, can be the customer of medical services. Ukrainian legislation governing the provision of medical services does not meet international standards. The positive experience of the EU countries (France, Denmark, Slovakia) and the world (Australia, Canada) shows that access to medical services is provided within the framework of medical insurance, in most cases free of charge, and is controlled by authorized state organizations. The purpose of the article is to determine the content, signs of medical services, classification criteria for their subjects, disclose the features of their legal regulation, clarify the problems of legalization of medical services and improve legislation taking into account foreign experience. The research methodology is based on a systematic approach, which is determined by the specifics of the topic of the article, and is also associated with the use of general and special research methods. The comparative legal method and the method of legal analysis were used in the study of legislative rules governing the provision of medical services. Using the method of legal analysis, groups of subjects of medical legal relations in the field of medical services are determined and their powers are analyzed. The formal logical method was used to differentiate the criteria for distinguishing between the legal structures “medical care” and “medical service”. The results of the study contributed to the identification of certain legal problems that arise when citizens receive medical services and require immediate resolution. It is also advisable to introduce compulsory state health 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 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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.020
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Amazonia InvestigaSame topicLegal Studies and ReformsFrench-language works237,207