Cultural forms underlying health-related discourses in the United States and Canada:a historical-comparative study of the two countries' editorials from 1965-1999
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates cultural reasons for differences between the U.S. health care system and its Canadian counterpart. The U.S. health care system is an entrepreneurial system based upon free market principles, while the Canadian health care system is a welfare-oriented system based upon governmental responsibilities. Differences in health care systems may reflect differences between two cultures. This paper is based upon Roberts' theoretical framework on modalities. The basic assumption is that social systems can be understood through the discursive use of modal statements (sentences in which actors declare what is possible, impossible, inevitable, or contingent for each other) and their associated rationales. In an analysis of U.S and Canadian editorials during the period from 1965 to 1999, evidence is found that editorialists in both countries tended to use economic rationales when accounting for people's possibilities and welfare-related rationales when accounting for people's inevitabilities. Data in this study also suggest that whereas Canadian editorialists tended to use welfare-related rationales, U.S. editorialists tended to use economic ones. In addition, despite the fact that during the study period three important laws were passed that established Canada's universal health care system, there is no evidence of simultaneous changes in Canada's health-related modal discourse. The findings suggest that Canadians' rhetoric of social responsibility (via mentions of inevitability for welfare reasons) was likely a fertile context for rather than a passive consequence of their developing system of universal health care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".