MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281552819 · doi:10.1111/spol.12817

Beyond financial constraints: The politics of Irish health system reform in the aftermath of the great recession

2022· article· en· W4281552819 on OpenAlexaff
Camilla Devitt

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Policy and Administration · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
FundersIrish Research eLibrary
KeywordsRecessionIrishIncentiveContext (archaeology)Abandonment (legal)PoliticsWelfare reformGovernment (linguistics)Financial crisisEconomicsWelfareEconomic policyPublic economicsPolitical economyPolitical scienceMarket economyMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article investigates the main factors influencing the success of welfare reforms in the context of crises. It focuses on the healthcare reform plan proposed in Ireland in the aftermath of the Great Recession, which aimed at the establishment of a universal health system but was only very partially implemented. As the plan would have required an increase in public expenditure, it may be expected that cost concerns explain the overall reform outcome in the context of an economic crisis. However, analysis of the process leading to the abandonment of a central element of the plan and the partial introduction of another component shows that, apart from financial concerns, the outcome is explained by three politico‐institutional factors: the political orientation of the parties in government; electoral (dis)incentives in pursuing different elements of the reform; and the extent of institutional change associated with them.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.017
Scholarly communication0.0180.003
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Policy and AdministrationSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207