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

Canadian Health Reform: A Gender Analysis

2005· article· en· W2149164831 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.065
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