Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Mazankowski committee considered all too familiar problems with the Alberta healthcare system, in particular expenditure inflation and public "affordability," and the efficiency of the provision of care to the population. The remedies if offers are incomplete and unconvincing because of the failure to use rigorously the evidence base. Is the system unaffordable when the modest effects of the aging of the population and efficient health technology assessment could control inflation? Why advocate "competition" when it is not defined and managed care in the United States has failed? The Council's report glosses over the crucial issues of how physicians ration healthcare in Alberta and how the profession has failed to evaluate and manage major variations in medical activity and outcomes. Investment in these areas together with global budgets and equitable financial allocations offers better health for the Alberta population. Many of the Council's proposals are not consistent with the goals of expenditure control, equity and efficiency.
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 | 0.013 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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".