MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282918947 · doi:10.1007/s10198-022-01472-8

Understanding bias in probabilistic analysis in model-based health economic evaluation

2022· article· en· W4282918947 on OpenAlexaff
Xuanqian Xie, Alexis K. Schaink, Sichen Liu, Myra Wang, Andrei Volodin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe European Journal of Health Economics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaPublic Health OntarioHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicPoint estimationEconometricsStatisticsEstimatorStatistical modelProbabilistic analysis of algorithmsVariance (accounting)MathematicsPopulationBayesian probabilityLinear modelComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.169
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.554
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1690.554
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.736
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.283 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe European Journal of Health EconomicsSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207