MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390022021 · doi:10.7202/1106843ar

Où en est l’expérience américaine du Managed Care ?

2023· article· fr· W4390022021 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel Simonet

Bibliographic record

VenueAssurances et gestion des risques · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’article retrace l’évolution du Managed Care . Une première partie porte sur la description et l’évaluation du Managed Care . Après un rappel historique de son avènement aux États-Unis seront précisés les mécanismes de contrôle des coûts, les changements dans la pratique médicale et les conséquences sur la santé des patients de ce régime de santé privé. Dans une deuxième partie, l’article fournit une interprétation théorique du Managed Care , en particulier l’essor des HMO, en utilisant notamment la théorie des coûts de transaction et les analyses de l’OMS sur les orientations du système de santé.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient 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 score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.004

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.350 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssurances et gestion des risquesSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207