MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1742562381 · doi:10.3138/cbmh.26.2.541

A Brief Retrospective on the Royal Commission on Health Services

2009· article· en· W1742562381 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jack Boan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health History · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Research and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrotherEconomic JusticeCommissionHeavenRoyal CommissionLawMedicineSociologyPolitical scienceArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many parts of Canada, but categorically not in Saskatchewan, Justice Emmett Hall is thought to be the father of Medicare. This is because the enlightened solution to the provision of medical services that we enjoy came as the result of the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Health Services of which Hall was the Chairman. There is another reason to introduce Hall in this setting: he and Tommy Douglas were good friends. To illustrate this, Fr. Anthony Hall, his young brother, told a cute story at the inaugural Justice Emmett Hall Memorial Lecture, in 1997. It seems that Tommy was in the Civic Hospital, and Emmett was in town on business, and asked to be driven to the hospital to see Tommy. Father Hall said, “I waited outside in the car, and, when Emmett came out he was chuckling, so I asked him why are you so happy? And he told me that Tommy was asleep when he went into the room, but, the patient in the other bed said go ahead, wake him up, he won’t mind. So, Emmett woke him up and then Tommy Douglas exploded in astonishment and said, ‘so, you’re here too, Emmett .I’m in heaven that’s what I’m dreaming about, but how did you get here?’”

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
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 score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.016
Science and technology studies0.0170.006
Scholarly communication0.0160.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0130.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.005

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 topicMedical Research and PracticesFrench-language works237,207