Cost-Effectiveness & Labour Market Outcomes in In-Vitro Fertilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work uses two techniques to explore cost-effectiveness and labour market outcomes of provincial IVF funding policy. First, I conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of IVF using a commonly accepted framework of Canadian health technology assessment from the perspective of the publicly-funded healthcare payer. Second, I construct a novel Conception Timing Model that represents the decision problem of a hypothetical Canadian individual who must weigh the tradeoff between having a child and the future income associated with furthering a career. The Conception Timing Model is developed under the rationale that the potential parent must incur an opportunity cost of lost wages when they decide to have a child. Results from the first approach suggests that a positive amount of IVF funding is cost-effective when constrained to the publicly funded healthcare payer perspective. The combination of the first and second approaches suggest that IVF policy may be used as both a health program and a social program that addresses inequities within the labour market. Results also speak to the importance of government ministries acting multilaterally to create effective welfare-improving policy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".