Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article examines changes in household spending on health care between 1978 and 1998. It also provides a detailed look at household spending on health care in 1998. DATA SOURCES: Data on household spending are from Statistics Canada's Family Expenditure Survey for survey years between 1978 and 1996, and from the annual Survey of Household Spending for 1997 and 1998. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Proportion of after-tax spending was calculated by subtracting average personal income taxes from average total expenditures and then dividing health care expenditures by this figure. Per capita spending was calculated by dividing average household spending by average household size. Constant dollar figures and adjustments for inflation were calculated using the Consumer Price Index (1998 = 100) to control for the effect of inflation over time. MAIN RESULTS: Almost every Canadian household (98.2%) reported health care expenditures in 1998, spending an average of close to $1,200, up from around $900 in 1978. In 1998, households dedicated a larger share of their average after-tax spending (2.9%) to health care than they did 20 years earlier (2.3%). Health insurance premiums claimed the largest share (29.8%) of average health care expenditures, followed by dental care, then prescription medications and pharmaceutical products.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".