MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Valuing life over the life cycle

2023· article· en· W4389248318 on OpenAlexaff
Pascal St‐Amour

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Economics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsCenter for Interuniversity Research and Analysis on Organizations
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWillingness to payValue of lifeLongevityEconomicsConsumption (sociology)Life expectancyWillingness to acceptValuation (finance)Falling (accident)Actuarial scienceMedicineGerontologyMicroeconomicsEnvironmental healthPopulationFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adjusting the valuation of life along the (i) person-specific (age, health, wealth) and (ii) mortality risk-specific (beneficial or detrimental, temporary or permanent changes) dimensions is relevant in prioritizing healthcare interventions. These adjustments are provided by solving a life cycle model of consumption, leisure and health choices and the associated Hicksian variations for mortality changes. The calibrated model yields plausible Values of Life Year between 154K$ and 200K$ and Values of Statistical Life close to 6.0M$. The willingness to pay (WTP) and to accept (WTA) compensation are equal and symmetric for one-shot beneficial and detrimental changes in mortality risk. However, permanent, and expected longevity changes are both associated with larger willingness for gains, relative to losses, and larger WTA than WTP. Ageing lowers both variations via falling resources and health, lower marginal continuation utility of living and decreasing longevity returns of changes in mortality.

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)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.355 · 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
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health EconomicsSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207