MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137831885 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2008.19917

Sweet Nothings? The BC Conversation on Health

2008· article· fr· W2137831885 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Alan Davidson

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationHealth careSociologyLibrary scienceKnowledge translationPolitical scienceMedia studiesLawKnowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On St. Valentine's Day 2006, the BC provincial government promised public discussions on healthcare. The ensuing Conversation on Health wrapped up last July. Meanwhile, the province has pursued more privately financed health construction projects (P3s) and tolerated expansion of the private healthcare subsector. The author reviews the differences between public consultation processes and the Conversation on Health, concluding that the principal aim of the BC government exercise was co-optation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.006

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207