MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385530954 · doi:10.1515/9780773599468

An Undisciplined Economist

2016· book· en· W4385530954 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Morris L. Barer, Greg L. Stoddart, Kimberlyn McGrail, Chris McLeod

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill-Queen's University Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For four decades Robert Evans has been Canada’s foremost health policy analyst and commentator, playing a leadership role in the development of both health economics and population health at home and internationally. An Undisciplined Economist collects Evans’ most important contributions and includes two new articles. The topics addressed range widely, from the peculiar structure of the health care industry to the social determinants of the health of entire populations to the misleading role that economists have sometimes played in health policy debates. Written with Evans' characteristic clarity, candour, and wit, these essays unabashedly expose health policy myths and the special interests that lie behind them. He refutes claims that public health insurance is unsustainable, that the health care costs of an aging population will bankrupt Canada, that user charges will make the health care system more efficient, and that health care is the most important determinant of a population’s health. An Undisciplined Economist is a valuable collection for those familiar with Evans’ work, a lucid introduction for those new to the fields of health economics, health policy, and population health, and a fitting tribute to an outstanding scholar.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.010

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill-Queen's University Press eBooksSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207