Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presentations of the research group on health care issues had a decidedly Canadian bent.Melody Isinger sketched the successes and weaknesses of the Canadian publicly funded medical system.Providing an historical overview of the socialization of medical insurance, including the complex federal/provincial relations on payment and control, Isinger demonstrated the manner in which the Canadian system attempts to operate in accordance with the five principles of the Canada Health Act of 1984: comprehensive coverage; portability; accessibility; universality; and public administration.Isinger pointed out that the principles have been loosely applied.For example, the system has never been fully comprehensive, with coverage either lacking or being minimal for dental work, many drugs, chiropractors, and so forth.She also pointed out the ways in which the coverage system struggles, as do all modern systems of medical coverage, with financing and control issues, the use of waiting lists as a form of rationing, and, in particular, the politicization of health care.As a response to these concerns, she proposed a Royal Commission on health care reform through which a broad-based societal consensus might be developed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".