Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We have estimated tuberculosis (TB)-related expenditures by governments and other third parties in Canada in 2004, in order to compare spending on different activities, by various jurisdictions, and in different regions. METHODS: To ascertain health system costs (including public health costs), a self-administered questionnaire was completed by all federal, provincial, and territorial health departments and laboratories involved in TB activities and a sample of local health departments. Hospitalization information was obtained from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, while costs for care were derived from published literature. Costs borne by patients and families were not included. All costs were ascertained for 2004 and expressed in Canadian dollars. RESULTS: In 2004, total TB-related expenditures in Canada were $74 million, equivalent to $47,290 for every active TB case diagnosed in that year. Research accounted for $4.5 million (or 6% of the total). Non-research-related federal spending accounted for $16.3 million (22%) and provincial/territorial expenditures accounted for $53.1 million (72%). Active tuberculosis accounted for $31 million or 59% of provincial/territorial expenditures. There were substantial regional differences in TB-related expenditures; the highest expenditures were in the Northern Territories ($72,441 per active TB case), followed by the four Western provinces ($35,914), and lowest in the Atlantic provinces ($28,259). CONCLUSIONS: Total TB-related expenditures in Canada in 2004 were considerable, of which almost 60% were for curative services and only 40% for prevention and control activities. Regional differences likely reflect differences in accessibility of the populations to health care services, and greater interventions in communities with ongoing TB transmission.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".