MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995382629 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2007.18529

A Cautionary Tale of Downloading Public Health in Ontario: What Does It Say about the Need for National Standards for More Than Doctors and Hospitals?

2006· article· en· W1995382629 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Raisa Deber, Kris Millan, Howard Shapiro, Christopher W. McDougall

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPublic Health Policies and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPreparednessGovernment (linguistics)Public administrationCompetition (biology)Health careService (business)BusinessCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Public relationsPolitical scienceMedicineLawMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2003 SARS outbreak highlighted the importance of maintaining an adequate public health (PH) infrastructure, and cast doubt on the wisdom of basing the system locally without adequate provisions for higher-level oversight and coordination. Structurally, it highlighted the policy legacy of the 1998 Ontario decision to download full responsibility for funding PH services to municipal governments, forcing such services into budgetary competition with the "hard" services traditionally provided by local government. The federal role in PH has traditionally been minimal; PH was never included as a mandatory service in the Canada Health Act, while reform proposals have focused upon such admittedly important directions as pharmacare and home care rather than PH. Although PH has moved up the policy agenda, with a focus on pandemic preparedness, the Ontario events suggest a pressing need for setting national and provincial/territorial standards for PH, and developing mechanisms for enforcing them.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.395 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicPublic Health Policies and EducationFrench-language works237,207