MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Social Impact of Healthcare Privatization: An Analysis

2024· article· en· W4407248026 on OpenAlexaffabout
ANK Zaman, Prosenjit Chatterjee, Tapas Vashi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicTaxation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careBusinessComputer scienceEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social media text analysis is one of the emerging techniques to judge peoples’ opinion on any ongoing topics that impacts human in general. When applicable, our research provides a comprehensive examination of people’s thoughts about a particular government’s choice to privatize healthcare on one of the most popular social media sites, Twitter (X). The experiment aims to learn more about public perceptions of the suitability of a particular government’s decision to privatize healthcare to address the current healthcare challenge. The study uses sentiment analysis to interpret the opinions of the public as they are expressed in tweets. Initially, we collected and scraped pertinent tweets using Python and the snscrape libraries based on keywords like medical, private, and country names like Canada. Second, several methods like stop-word removal are used to clean and preprocess the scrapped tweets. In our experiment, three distinct lexicon types-TextBlob, Vader, and Afinn-are used. The three lexicons are applied to the tweets to better understand the public’s perspective regarding the government’s decision. Our experiment used Na"ive Bayes (NBs) probabilistic machine learning (ML) model based on Bayes’ theorem (BT). We also utilized Deep Convolutional Neural Networks (DCNNs) to confirm the tweeted text is appropriately labelled as neutral, positive, and negative. According to the results obtained from the NBs probabilistic ML model, it was revealed that about half of the participants showed support for the healthcare privatization initiative. Conversely, approximately one-third conveyed negative sentiments, and roughly one-tenth maintained a neutral opinion for certain countries, such as Canada. Our research findings can be valuable in understanding the countries’ citizens’ sentiments on the conclusions derived by the authorities. Similarly, our experiments can also benefit other healthcare specialists and researchers. In this research, Twitter can be referred to by its new name X.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTaxation and Compliance Studies→French-language works237,207→