MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3092356046

Economic evaluation and when to use it

2020· article· en· W3092356046 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Gregersen Østergaard, Maurits W. van Tulder

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionEconomic evaluationCost–benefit analysisOutcome (game theory)Economic costPublic economicsEconomic impact analysisHealth careBusinessEconomicsActuarial scienceEconomic growthMedicinePolitical scienceMicroeconomicsNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Economic evaluation in health care provides possibilities for comparing the benefits and costs of different interventions. An economic evaluation sys-tematically assesses both outcome and costs of at least two interventions and produces information on whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs(1). The main aspects of any economic evaluation are to identify, measure, evaluate and compare the costs and effects of the interventions in focus.

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)0.121
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.453
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1210.453
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0160.017
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0100.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.006

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 head0.227
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.097 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→