The Universality of the Canadian Health Care System in Question: Barriers to Services for Immigrants and Refugees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The universality of the health system in Canada is often emphasised to contrast the differences between the Canadian and American systems of access to care. However, changes in migration patterns and tightening of administrative procedures around undocumented persons are beginning to challenge this Canadian image. Currently, there is a lack of data to support the existence and the consequences of this shift. This pilot project documents health care professionals' and community organisation workers' perceptions of the problems faced by recent migrants in accessing health care, and the health consequences of such barriers. Results confirm the existence of numerous health care access problems for both completely undocumented migrants and legal migrants who fall into the cracks of the provincial and federal health systems. The data suggests that these barriers may have important unrecognised morbidity and mortality consequences, and that they are a source of severe stress and psychological distress. To protect recent immigrant families, there is a need not only to revise the articulation between the provincial and federal health mandates but also to address the strong societal perception linking universality of health care to the notion of citizenship. Further research is warranted on this emerging social problem, but the institutional sensitivity of these issues may constitute an obstacle to a more comprehensive understanding.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".