MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099057935

Insurance and Health Care Expenditures: What’s the Real Question?

2016· article· en· W7099057935 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBiological Control of Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical Expenditure Panel SurveyQuarter (Canadian coin)Health careHealth insuranceObservational studyMedical carePanel dataVariety (cybernetics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For more than a quarter century, researchers and policy-makers have known that people who must pay out of pocket for health care—because they are uninsured or face high levels of cost sharing—use less care (1, 2). However, uninsured persons differ from insured persons in a variety of measured and unmeasured ways (3). Consequently, the precise effect of insurance on health care utilization and expenditures is difficult to quantify by using observational data. In this issue, Ward and Franks (4) take a new ap-proach to addressing this question. They used data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, which collects in-formation on respondents over 2 years, to compare health care expenditures for 4 groups: continuously insured per-sons, continuously uninsured persons, persons who are un-insured during the first year but are insured the next year,

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBiological Control of Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207