Canadians want national medical standards to prevent inequalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s doctors and nurses have become strong allies as they push jointly for national standards of care for all patients in Canada, regardless of where they live. Canadians fear that national standards are being eroded as government leaders squabble over healthcare. Because of its size the federation of Canada is administered by not one but 14 governments: one federal, 10 provincial, and three territorial. The federal government is responsible for setting national principles for healthcare through the Canada Health Act, which gives Canadians access to “universal, comprehensive coverage for medically necessary hospital and physician services” through Medicare, the nation’s publicly funded healthcare system. But there are inequalities in care and costs, as each government decides what is “medically necessary.” Also, Medicare does not cover the cost of outpatient prescription drugs ( BMJ 2012;344:e514, doi:10.1136/bmj.e514), dental care, or home 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 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 | 0.016 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".