Home Care, Continuing Care and Medicare: A Canadian Model or Innovative Models for Canadians?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why is home care excluded from the Canada Health Act? In the 1960s, the Hall Commission suggested that home care be covered through medicare. History decided otherwise--only "medically" necessary care was insured. Today, home-care services are provided in conjunction with episodes of hospital care, or are delivered to frail individuals as part of their social and healthcare needs. However, healthcare can no longer be defined simply as a state of absence of disease. Health also includes individuals' physical and mental functional abilities. Coverage for health services should include those services aimed at preserving and maintaining functional abilities. Moreover, access to home care is inequitable in Canada. Financing mechanisms should improve integration of care, not increase barriers between medical, hospital and social care. As home-care services are provided to persons with different needs, financing and organizational mechanisms have to guarantee that resources are distributed most effectively to meet these needs. Finally, home-care delivery should adapt to local, regional and provincial realities. There is no such thing as "one" Canadian home-care model. Already, a number of experiments with home care are being implemented in Canada. It is in the search for innovative service delivery modalities that Canadians will best be served.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".