MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144971546 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2011.22396

Canadian Political Science and Medicare: Six Decades of Inquiry

2011· article· en· W2144971546 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Michael O’Neill, Dylan McGuinty, Bryan Teskey

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsPrincipal (computer security)Sample (material)InstitutionalismSociologyPositive economicsSocial sciencePolitical scienceEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on an extensive sample of the literature, this critical review dissects the principal themes that have animated the Canadian political science profession on the topic of medicare. The review considers the coincidence of economic eras and how these are reflected in the methodological approaches to the study of medicare. As is to be expected, most of the scholarly activity coincides with the economic era marked by fiscal restraint and decreases in social investments (1993-2003). At the same time, the review notes the prevalence of institutionalism as an approach to the topic and the scholarly community's near-consensus on medicare as a defining characteristic of the country and its people.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0300.053
Science and technology studies0.0180.029
Scholarly communication0.0230.009
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicNursing Education, Practice, and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207