MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1484159374 · doi:10.3138/cbmh.26.2.429

The Hoadley Commission (1932–34) and Health Insurance in Alberta

2009· article· en· W1484159374 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Robert Lampard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health History · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsAlberta Medical AssociationUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionGovernment (linguistics)Health insurancePlan (archaeology)BusinessPublic administrationLawPolitical scienceHealth careFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of Albertans in the evolution of health insurance in Canada, and particularly the Hoadley Commission, has been overlooked and assumed to be non-contributory. The Commission proposed for the first time that all citizens be insured, and the provincial government would pay for those who could not afford the premiums. The proposed plan was to be centrally administrated by a government-appointed commission. The Commission's principles were supported by the AMA/CPSA in 1932 and incorporated into the CMA's health insurance plan between 1934 and 1935. The proposal stimulated the first Blue Cross plan in Canada in Edmonton in 1934. It was supported by the Social Credit government, who in 1942 re-passed the UFA Health Insurance Act of 1935. The Act meshed perfectly with the federal Heagerty Advisory Committee proposal of 1943.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0250.015
Scholarly communication0.0070.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health HistorySame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207