MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6891223812 · doi:10.3886/icpsr35623.v3

Health Reform Monitoring Survey, United States, Second Quarter 2013

2013· dataset· en· W6891223812 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueICPSR Data Holdings · 2013
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespondentQuarter (Canadian coin)Government (linguistics)MedicaidHealth careHealth insuranceBehavioral Risk Factor Surveillance SystemPurchasing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In January 2013, the Urban Institute launched the Health Reform Monitoring Survey (HRMS), a quarterly survey of the nonelderly population, to explore the value of cutting-edge, Internet-based survey methods to monitor the Affordable Care Act (ACA) before data from federal government surveys are available. Topics covered by the second round of the survey (second quarter 2013) include self-reported health status, type of and satisfaction with current health insurance coverage, access to and use of health care, health care affordability, whether the respondent considered purchasing or tried to purchase health insurance coverage directly from an insurance company, whether the respondent considered obtaining coverage through Medicaid or other government sponsored assistance plan based on income or disability, sources of information about health insurance, and the importance of various criteria in choosing a health insurance plan. Additional information collected by the survey includes age, education, race, Hispanic origin, gender, income, household size, housing type, marital status, employment status, number of employees at place of work, United States citizenship, smoking, internet access, home ownership, body mass index, sexual orientation, and whether the respondent reported an ambulatory care sensitive condition or a mental or behavioral condition.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0080.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.045

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.246 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICPSR Data HoldingsFrench-language works237,207