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

Canadian health system reforms: lessons for Australia?

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

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.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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

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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Health ReviewSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207