Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wait times have come to dominate the health reform agenda and have captured the public imagination. Waiting for any service--from fast food to e-mail--is difficult for contemporary Canadians; this is especially true for healthcare. Addressing wait times is part of a much larger initiative essential for the health system and dependent on a culture shift from the "blame game" to a sustained, meaningful accountability. Achieving this goal in such a value-laden endeavour as healthcare will be no small task. Accountability for the fair provision of access to and quality of services in healthcare is complex and demanding, in large part because of the nature of health need and the social meaning of healthcare. Failure of progress on this issue is related to a lack of clarity about the locus, meaning and scope of accountability. Without such clarity the term runs the risk of becoming useless or dangerous. Ethically, the key lies in understanding the profoundly value-laden nature of both healthcare and public policy.
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 | 0.047 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.089 | 0.079 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".