MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2187990041

CPSA ANNUAL CONFERENCE Session L5A “The Canada Health Act, Federal Funding, and the Future of Health Care in Canada”

2004· article· en· W2187990041 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Williams

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth policyHealth careGovernment (linguistics)Session (web analytics)Public administrationPolitical sciencePublic healthPublic policyParadigm shiftOrder (exchange)Public economicsBusinessEconomicsMedicineNursingLawFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health care is an extremely important issue to all Canadians. It has also been one of the most study topics in Canadian public policy research. What needs to be considered at this point, in the health policy discussion, are the factors which must be present in order for a change in policy to take place. Why is that when so much has been written about the health care system, we have only seen two periods of substantial policy change (Medicare Act, and the Canada Health Act)? This paper examines the implementation of the Canada Health Act, and identifies the key variables that are present at the time of a substantial policy shift (or paradigm shift to occur). An important finding of this paper is that federal government’s use of its spending power is a key variable in understanding the timing a paradigm shifts in health policy. This paper concludes by examining the effects that the change to the CHST may have on the future of health policy in Canada. The potential appears to exist for a substantial shift in health policy to occur in the near future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0090.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity→French-language works237,207→