MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6939901511 · doi:10.7282/t30g3n8h

Demographics of disenrollment from SCHIP: evidence from NJ KidCare

2004· article· en· W6939901511 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueView · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemographicsMedicaidPovertyHealth insuranceHealth carePoverty levelSocioeconomic statusPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) provides health insurance coverage for children in low-income families. Although there is evidence of substantial disenrollment from SCHIP, few studies have examined how disenrollment varies by demographic characteristics. This study uses data from administrative records of all 41,881 children enrolled prior to April 2000 in NJ KidCare (New Jersey's SCHIP) separate state plans for families with incomes between 133% and 350% of the Federal Poverty Level. Survival methods were used to analyze disenrollment according to demographic and plan characteristics. Reasons for disenrollment were also studied. Overall, 18.9% of children disenrolled within 12 months of enrollment. Disenrollment was higher among non-Hispanic black children, children aged 1 to 5, and children without siblings in NJ KidCare than among their counterparts. Surprisingly, English speakers had the highest disenrollment rate of all language groups. Children in families with moderate income categories for whom premium contributions were required were 3 times as likely as lower-income children to disenroll, principally due to non-payment of premiums. To maximize retention in SCHIP and ensure access to care and continuity of care for low-income children, research is needed concerning why some groups disenroll more quickly.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.204 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueViewSame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207