MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016971041 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.051153

Prescription drug coverage: An essential service or a fringe benefit?

2005· letter· en· W2016971041 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Robyn Tamblyn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical prescriptionSalientEssential drugsHealth servicesPrescription drugHealth careService (business)DrugMedicineInternet privacyComputer scienceBusinessNursingPharmacologyEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceMarketingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study in this issue by Anis and colleagues on user fees for prescription drugs[1][1] highlights one of the most salient contradictions in the Canadian health care system. Equal access to medically necessary services is a cherished and protected principle of the Canada Health Act. But when it

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0660.039
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207