Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internationally, health policy analysts are often surprised that Canada's national system of health insurance (Medicare) does not include dental care. Understanding the historical reasons for its exclusion can inform current domestic and international policy debates on dental care. This paper proposes five interrelated reasons for why dental care was not incorporated into Canadian Medicare (i.e. legislative, professional, socio-cultural, economic, and epidemiological). In summary, dental care was not included because of significant decreases in dental caries and limitations in dental human resources as the country's health legislation was being developed, alongside the presence of a viable alternative option to large-scale treatment ser- vices (i.e. fluoridation), and the belief that maintaining one's oral health and the ability to seek out dental care were individual responsibilities, not social ones. Reflecting on these historical reasons provides an important policy foil for current interna- tional efforts at expanding the public financing of dental care.
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 | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| 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".