MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6928732226 · doi:10.3886/icpsr35624

Health Reform Monitoring Survey, United States, First Quarter 2013

2015· dataset· en· W6928732226 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueICPSR Data Holdings · 2015
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Analysis with R
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRobert Wood Johnson Foundation
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)RespondentGovernment (linguistics)Health careBehavioral Risk Factor Surveillance SystemMental healthHealth insuranceSurvey data collection

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 first round of the survey (first quarter 2013) include self-reported health status, type of and satisfaction with current health insurance coverage, access to and use of health care, and health care affordability. Additional information collected by the survey includes age, education, race, Hispanic origin, gender, income, household size, housing type, marital status, employment status, 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.023

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.331
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; 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 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICPSR Data HoldingsSame topicData Analysis with RFrench-language works237,207