Healthcare, Intergovernmentalism and Population Health: The Challenge of Reform in an Era of Disengagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The model proposed by Gardner, Fierlbeck and Levy offers an innovative and compelling framework for moving past the dysfunction of the current intergovernmental relationship in health. It provides a viable role for the federal government and a means to shift our attention on improving health outcomes relative to past provincial performance. At the same time there are important questions about how both federal leadership and population health is understood and justified within the model. The history of federal leadership in health reform is questioned as to both its necessity and its effectiveness. One must also confront the possibility that federal disengagement from contentious intergovernmental issues may be emerging as a more permanent feature of federal-provincial relations in Canada. For the focus on population health to be effective, it must, in the first instance, take into account the necessity of focussing population health interventions for the most marginalized populations and the need to focus those interventions on the socio-economic determinants of health that exist outside of the healthcare system.
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 | 0.024 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.085 | 0.079 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".