MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285260502 · doi:10.18690/um.fov.3.2022.6

Public - Private Partnership in Health

2022· article· en· W4285260502 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Olja Arsenijević, Marija Lugonjić, Polona Šprajc

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPublic-Private Partnership Projects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipPublic–private partnershipBusinessHealth carePromotion (chess)Public healthcarePublic healthPublic relationsPublic administrationEconomic growthPolitical scienceFinanceMedicineNursingEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The WHO World Health Organization encourages PPP and believes that it is inevitable in healthcare because it represents significant opportunities. The WHO strategy is the promotion and protection of public health, which is presented in this way as well. Achieving the goals and economic launch of the PPP project requires a lot of resources and knowledge. The focus should be on the development of a methodology related to the preparation of a PPP project. PPP - partnership in healthcare is a strategy to increase efficiency. We will present the advantages and disadvantages of public-private partnerships in healthcare in the Republic of Serbia, in the Republic of Croatia, PPPPartnerships of Canada and healthcare in the UK-as well as development, legal regulation and institutional support.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.166 · 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.

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPublic-Private Partnership ProjectsFrench-language works237,207