Health Reform Monitoring Survey, United States, First Quarter 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 quarter 2015 survey (the ninth round of the HRMS) include self-reported health status, awareness of key provisions of the ACA, sources of information about the health plans offered in the ACA marketplace, whether health insurance was purchased through the ACA marketplace, difficulties with access to health care and paying for medical bills and housing costs, out-of-pocket health care costs, type of health insurance coverage if any, and reasons for not having health insurance. Respondents who enrolled in a health insurance plan through the ACA marketplace in 2014 were asked if and why they renewed or changed their plan in 2015. Additional information collected by the survey includes age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, family size, education, race, Hispanic origin, United States citizenship, housing type, home ownership, internet access, income, employment status, and employer size. The data file also records whether the respondent reported an ambulatory care sensitive condition or a mental or behavioral health condition and whether the respondent or a family member received Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, unemployment insurance benefits or benefits though the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program, Earned Income Tax Credit, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or child care services or child care assistance from a local welfare agency or case manager.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".