MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032878053 · doi:10.1071/ah050105

Canadian health system reforms: lessons for Australia?

2005· article· en· W2032878053 on OpenAlex
Gregory P. Marchildon

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Health Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegionalisationGovernment (linguistics)Public administrationPublic healthPopulation healthHealth care reformPerspective (graphical)Health careHealth economicsPolitical sciencePhase (matter)Economic growthHealth policyMedicineEconomicsNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyses recent health reform agenda in Canada. From 1988 until 1997, the first phase of reforms focused on service integration through regionalisation and a rebalancing of services from illness care to prevention and wellness. The second phase, which has been layered onto the ongoing first phase, is concerned with fiscal sustainability from a provincial perspective, and the fundamental nature of the system from a national perspective. Despite numerous commissions and studies, some questions remain concerning the future direction of the public system. The Canadian reform experience is compared with recent Australian health reform initiatives in terms of service integration through regionalisation, primary care reform, Aboriginal health, the public-private debate, intergovernmental relations and the role of the federal government.

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.260
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.279 · 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