MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149164831 · doi:10.1080/1354570042000332579

Canadian Health Reform: A Gender Analysis

2005· article· en· W2149164831 on OpenAlexaffabout
Evelyn L. Forget, Raisa Deber, Leslíe L. Roos, Randy Walld

Bibliographic record

VenueFeminist Economics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsManitoba HealthUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiberian dollarHealth careDemographic economicsWageCompensation (psychology)Health reformBusinessSocial securityHealth insuranceReproductive healthEconomic growthLabour economicsEconomicsPolitical scienceDemographySociologyPsychologyFinanceMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyze the gender impact of the current Canadian system of first-dollar health insurance by examining the use of physicians' services and acute-care hospital services in the Canadian province of Manitoba from April 1, 1997, to March 31, 1999. First, we describe the use by age and sex of healthcare resources offered with universal access at no cost to individuals. Second, we argue that women have a particular interest in maintaining single-payer insurance, because women are moderately high users of healthcare resources, while men tend to be low or catastrophic users who would be shielded from the full force of market-oriented reforms. Third, we attempt to refocus the debate about the gender implications of market-oriented health reform by noting that medicare transfers resources to women of reproductive age from the rest of society, a form of social wage paid as in-kind compensation to women for nonpaid reproductive labor.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.016
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFeminist EconomicsSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207