Examining Fiscal Federalism, Regionalization and Community-Based Initiatives in Canada's Health Care Delivery System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on the ability of Canadian provinces to shape in different ways the development of various provincial health delivery systems within the constraints of the mandates of the federal Canada Health Act of 1984 and the fiscal revenues that the provinces receive if they comply with these mandates. In so doing, it will examine the operation of Canadian federalism with respect to various provincial health systems. This study applies a comparative analysis framework developed by Heisler and Peters to facilitate an understanding of the dimensionality of provincial health delivery systems as applied to the case of provincial regionalization and community-based initiatives. The three sets of relationships touched upon are: first, the levels of government and the nature of their involvement in public policy concerning the provincial health care delivery systems; and secondly, understanding of the factors influencing provincial governments' political dispositions to act in various directions. A third dimension that is taken are the factors influencing the "timing" of particular decisions. A fourth area noted by Heisler and Peters and other comparative analysts is the nature and characteristics of public and private sector activities in health care and other social policy areas. While the evolving nature of public and private sector health care delivery activities within Canada's provincial and territorial systems is a significant policy matter in the Canadian context, due to the space limitations of this article, they are not discussed herein.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".