Relatively Inaccessible Abundance: Reflections on U.S. Health Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outsiders' views of American health care - and Canadian views in particular - contains this paradox: ready access to excellent high tech services for those who can pay but unfortunately too expensive for many Americans; in essence, inaccessible abundance. In this paper, I embellish upon this paradox with an initial examination of the rather complicated organization of American health care as viewed by an outside observer. I then highlight the key benefits and drawbacks seen of U.S. health care, grounded in empirical data, and how despite its drawbacks it is being spread to other countries. I conclude with a discussion of the values inherent in the provision of health care - that is, whether it should be viewed as a commodity or as a right of the citizens of a nation.
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 | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".