MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2191380877 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.1847

Politiques publiques et critères d’inscription des médicaments dans le régime public québécois d’assurance médicaments

2006· article· fr· W2191380877 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Hubert Doucet

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les systèmes publics d’assurance médicaments font face à un défi de taille : déterminer les critères d’inscription des médicaments sur la liste de remboursement. Cet article se penche sur la situation québécoise. À la naissance du système, deux critères qui se voulaient objectifs ont été retenus : la valeur thérapeutique et la justesse du prix. Rapidement, ils sont apparus incapables de juguler une extraordinaire croissance des coûts. Il a fallu ajouter d’autres critères plus sociaux qui n’avaient pas les mêmes caractères objectifs. Ces nouveaux critères, de nature politique, obligent les décideurs à faire preuve d’une extraordinaire transparence à laquelle on n’est pas toujours habitué.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.006
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.317 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207