MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240730987 · doi:10.4324/9780203935040

Health Economics

2007· book· en· W4240730987 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Barbara McPake, Charles Normand, Samantha Smith, Anne Nolan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This popular textbook provides a comprehensive but accessible coverage of health economic principles and applications. It provides an introduction for those with no previous knowledge of economics, but also more advanced material suitable for those with a background in economics. Now into its second edition, Barbara McPake and Charles Normand have incorporated developments in economic evaluation and economics of health systems from recent research and experience while retaining an accessible approach and style. The book starts with a section on basic economic principles as applied to health and health care, and goes on to discuss economic evaluation in health care, the economics of health systems and health care finance. Examples and illustrations are taken from a wide range of settings and world regions, reflecting the authors’ belief that the same principles apply, and that it is useful to have some understanding of how different countries organise the health system. It provides an understanding of the performance of different health systems from the insurance based approaches in the United States to government funding that is common in Canada and most countries in Europe, and the mixed systems that operate in most low-income countries. This book is ideal for students in public health and related courses, for health care professionals and those studying health economics at a more advanced level.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1300.040

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations33
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207