MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412110322 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2025.27616

Impacts of Home Care Investments in Alberta: Ecological and Economic Trend Analysis

2025· article· fr· W4412110322 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Max Jajszczok, Cathy A. Eastwood, Mingshan Lu, Ceara Cunningham, Hude Quan

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealthcare systemBusinessHealth careEnvironmental healthCost–benefit analysisEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental resource managementMedicineEnvironmental scienceEconomic growthEconomicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No standardized cost-based homecare-specific indicators are used provincially or nationally in Canada. We trended and portrayed Alberta's homecare costs and health system usage between 2015-16 and 2019-20. In addition, we conducted a cost-effectiveness ratio analysis. Total avoided acute care utilization was estimated at 346.2 thousand in-patient days. With $240.3 million in homecare investments above general growth, our cost-effectiveness ratio is 694:1. Application of these cost-based indicators reveals that homecare programs improve system cost-effectiveness. These indicators can assist health-system policy makers in understanding how systems are structured, specifically in achieving the goal of sustaining the publicly funded health system.

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)0.004
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 score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.287 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207