MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093921637 · doi:10.1177/0192512110385291

Examining private and public provision in Canada’s provincial health care systems: comparing Ontario and Quebec

2011· article· en· W2093921637 on OpenAlexaffabout
Howard A. Palley, Marie‐Pascale Pomey, Pierre-Gerlier Forest

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Political Science Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsPierre Elliott Trudeau FoundationUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth carePrivate sectorPublic administrationNegotiationHealth policyPublic sectorEconomic growthBusinessPoliticsLiberian dollarPopulationSustainabilityPolitical scienceEconomicsEnvironmental healthMedicineFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Globally, the mix of private- and public-sector involvement in health care delivery is a focus of political concern. This concern in Canada takes place within the parameters of the federal Canada Health Act. Private for-profit activities in the health care sector in Canadian provinces have moderately shrunk the definition of ‘necessary medical and hospital services’ that must be provided by the public administration system under the federal Canada Health Act. In this article, we argue that the development of new technologies, pharmaceutical innovations, competing (non-health) demands on the federal dollar, and an aging population together create an environment where pressures for economic and political sustainability have led to some erosion of necessary health services in the provinces. Such pressures have, in turn, led to the growth of private commercial-sector health services. Within Canada’s federal system, provincial negotiation of the role of commercial health care organizations has developed in different ways in Ontario and Quebec. Such subnational developments are a significant focus for comparative health policy analysis.

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)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.876

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.013
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.151
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.152 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Political Science ReviewSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207