MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232851435 · doi:10.33423/jabe.v23i1.4052

Reviewers Ranking as a Variable in Value Creation: Health Care Case

2021· article· en· W4232851435 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business and Economics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer churn and segmentation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeightingValuation (finance)Health careRanking (information retrieval)Service providerActuarial scienceBusinessComputer scienceMedicineService (business)MarketingEconomicsInformation retrievalFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Users of healthcare services are providing online reviews of the services received from the healthcare providers. Positive patient reviews are likely to attract more patients and repeat visits. Health care providers are aware that a shift in the patient selection mechanism is taking place. One problem is the valuation of online reviews. This paper proposes a new algorithm that ranks each reviewer by weighting the type of feedback they provide for service providers to provide an economic valuation for the reviewers and their reviews. The algorithms calculate an Eigenvector and generate a weight for the reviews and the reviewers.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business and EconomicsSame topicCustomer churn and segmentationFrench-language works237,207