MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097919164

Private Health Insurance and Access to Health Care

2004· article· en· W7097919164 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicOccupational and Professional Licensing Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Health insuranceHealth careEarningsGermanQuarter (Canadian coin)European unionPopulationHealth policy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mossialos Private or voluntary health insurance (VHI) does not play a significant role in many health systems in the European Union (EU), either in terms of funding or as a means of gaining access to health care. In most EU member states it accounts for less than 5 % of total expenditure on health and covers a relatively small proportion of the population (see Table 1). The exceptions to this trend are France, Germany and the Netherlands. VHI fulfils diff e rent roles in diff e rent contexts. In the EU context it can be classified a c c o rding to whether its role, in relation to s t a t u t o ry health insurance (SHI), is substitutive, complementary or supplementary. Substitutive VHI provides cover that would o t h e rwise be available from the state. It is p u rchased by those who are excluded fro m p a rticipating in some or all aspects of the SHI scheme – for example, Dutch residents with an annual income over 30,700 a year and their dependants (around a quarter of the population) – or by those can choose to opt out of that SHI scheme, such as German employees with annual earnings over 45,900 and their

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 topicOccupational and Professional Licensing RegulationFrench-language works237,207