MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396808936 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1364973

Technical efficiency and its convergence among village clinics in rural China: evidence from Shanxi Province

2024· article· en· W4396808936 on OpenAlexaff
Yun Ye, Richard Evans, Xiaojun Huang, Wei Xu, Wei Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersHainan Medical UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsConvergence (economics)Government (linguistics)ChinaSubsidyBusinessHealth servicesService (business)Rural areaDistribution (mathematics)Economic growthEconomicsGeographyMedicineEnvironmental healthMarketingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Village clinics (VCs) are the foundation of the three-tiered health service system in China, delivering basic and routine outpatient services to citizens in rural China. VC technical efficiency and its convergence play a critical role in policy decisions regarding the distribution of health service resources in rural China. Methods This study measured VC technical efficiency (using the slacks-based measure model), its convergence (using the convergence model), and the factors that influence the convergence in Shanxi Province, China. Data were obtained from the Shanxi Rural Health Institute 2014–2018 Health Statistics Report, which involved 3,543 VCs. Results The results showed that VC technical efficiency was low and differed by region. There was no α convergence in VC technical efficiency, but evidence of β convergence was found in Shanxi. The main factors that influence convergence were the building area of each VC (BA), proportion of government subsidies (PGS), and ratio of total expenditure to total income of each VC (RTETI). Conclusion The government should increase investments in VCs and improve VC technical efficiency. Meanwhile, the government should be aware of and take measures to curb the inequity in VC technical efficiency among different regions and take suitable measures to curb this disparity.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207