MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2023839005 · doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7376.1320/a

Canada's healthcare system should focus on primary care, report says

2002· article· en· W2023839005 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David J. Spurgeon

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus (optics)Primary careHealth careHealthcare systemPrimary health careMedicinePolitical scienceFamily medicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sweeping and expensive changes have been proposed to ensure the long term sustainability of Canada's healthcare system. The proposals are contained in a report from the Royal Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, which was chaired by lawyer and former politician Roy Romanow. The report's 47 detailed recommendations, which include implementation timeframes, will cost the federal government $C15bn (£6.2bn; US$9.6bn; €9.6bn) more than the budget currently forecast for health by 2005-6. In presenting his report Romanow, former premier of the province of Saskatchewan, where Canada's Medicare was born 40 years ago, voiced his strong opposition to private, for profit healthcare programmes. Their failure, he said, was the reason for establishing Canada's public system in the first place, and Canadians were sceptical of them. Over the past 18 months his research included consultations involving tens of thousands of ordinary citizens and health …

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0140.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.004

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→