MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025705089 · doi:10.1257/pandp.20201006

Artificial Intelligence in Health Care? Evidence from Online Job Postings

2020· article· en· W3025705089 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAEA Papers and Proceedings · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalaryHealth carePsychologyBusinessData scienceInternet privacyPublic relationsMedical educationComputer scienceMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper documents a puzzle. Despite the numerous popular press discussions of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care, there has been relatively little adoption. Using data from Burning Glass Technologies on millions of online job postings, we find that AI adoption in health care remains substantially lower than in most other industries and that under 3 percent of the hospitals in our data posted any jobs requiring AI skills from 2015-2018. The low adoption rates mean any statistical analysis is limited. Nevertheless, the adoption we do observe shows that larger hospitals, larger counties, and integrated salary model hospitals are more likely to adopt.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.274 · 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