Waiting for Care in Canada: Findings from the Health Services Access Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Waiting for care has been and continues to be a major issue for the healthcare sector in Canada. While considerable gains have been made regarding valid and reliable information on waiting times, gaps remain. Statistics Canada continues to provide information regarding patients' experiences in accessing care at the national and provincial levels, including how long individuals waited for specialized services, through the Health Services Access Survey. The survey offers several advantages, including waiting time information that is comparable across time and space, enhanced patient information and information regarding patients' experiences in waiting for care. The results for 2005 indicate that median waiting time for all specialized services was between 3 and 4 weeks and remained relatively stable between 2003 and 2005. Waiting times for specialist visits did not vary by income. In addition to being asked how long they waited, individuals were asked about their experiences in waiting for care. While the majority of individuals waiting for care indicated that their waiting time was acceptable, there continues to be a proportion of Canadians who feel they are waiting an unacceptably long time for care. Between 11% and 18% of individuals waiting for care indicated that their life was affected by waiting.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".