Canadian Medicare: Is there a Potential for Loyalty? Evidence from Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.Political-economic theory posits that in the face of a perceived decline in service quality, those who might otherwise seek alternatives will be restrained by feelings of loyalty that are a product of their emotional and physical investment in a situation (Hirschman, 1970). Amartya Sen (1977) describes support for policies that is based exclusively in values—rather than self-interest or a combination of the two—as a commitment. This article sets out to answer two questions: First, what proportion of the supporters of Canadian medicare within the province of Alberta currently expresses self-interest, and what proportion does not? We can describe this latter group as possibly expressing commitment. Second, is it possible that those who support medicare and express self-interest also share the same values as those who might be expressing commitment? If so, feelings of loyalty might help to maintain support for medicare among those who currently express self-interest, should they perceive a decline in service quality. While evidence is found to support this view, care must be taken in generalizing the results to the wider population, given the size and nature of the sample. Résumé.La théorie politique-économique pose en principe que, face à la perception d'un déclin de la qualité des services, ceux qui seraient normalement susceptibles de chercher d'autres solutions seront restreints par les sentiments de loyauté produits par l'investissement émotif et physique de l'individu dans son environnement (Hirschman, 1970). Sen (1977) décrit l'appui voué à certaines politiques pour des raisons exclusivement idéologiques, plutôt que par intérêt personnel, ou encore pour une combinaison de raisons idéologiques et d'intérêt personnel, comme un engagement. Cet article se propose de répondre à deux questions: en premier, quelle proportion de partisans du système public de santé canadien en Alberta exprime, ou n'exprime pas, des intérêts personnels? On peut probablement décrire le groupe qui n'exprime pas d'intérêts personnels comme témoignant d'un engagement. Deuxièmement, est-il possible que ceux qui soutiennent le système de santé tout en exprimant des intérêts personnels aient les mêmes valeurs que ceux qui expriment leur engagement? Si oui, ces sentiments de loyauté pourraient aider à maintenir le soutien pour le système de santé parmi ceux qui expriment actuellement des intérêts personnels, s'ils avaient l'impression d'un déclin de la qualité des services. Bien que nous ayons trouvé des preuves étayant cet avis, il faut être prudent dans la généralisation des résultats à l'ensemble de la population à cause de la taille et de la nature de l'échantillon.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".