Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article reviews the major developments in Canadian health policy since the mid‐1950s and concludes with an assessment of the relevance and impact of the recent report by the Senate standing committee on social affairs, science and technology (Kirby report) and the report of the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada (Romanow report). The author demonstrates that hospital and medical insurance plans and the operation of Canadian federal institutions have had conserving effects on policy and politics in the health sector and that recent reforms such as regionalization of services have consolidated rather than transformed key policy‐relevant relationships. The article concludes that the principles, values and core disputes within the Canadian health policy sector in 2004 closely resemble those of fifty years ago. Sommaire: Le présent article passed en revue les grandes lignes de déloppement dans le domaine de la politique de la santé au Canada depuis le milieu des années 1950. En conclusion, il présente une évaluation de la pertinence et des répercussions du récent rapport du Comité dénatorial permanent des affaires sociales, des sciences et de la technologie (rapport Kirby) et du rapport de la Commission sur l'avenir des soins de santé au Canada (rapport Romanow). L'auteur démontre que les régimes d'assurance santé et hospitalisation et le fonctionnement des institutions fédérales canadiennes ont eu pour effets de préserver les polices et la politique dans le secteur de la santé et que les réformes récentes comme la régionalisation des services ont consolidé plutôt que transformé les relations‐clés propres aux politiques. L'auteur de l'article conclut en faisant remarquer que les principes, les valeurs et les différends fondamentaux au sein du secteur de la politiques de la santé au Canada en 2004 ressemblent étroitement à ceux d'il y a cinquante ans.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".