Healthcare is political: case example of physician advocacy in response to the cuts to refugees’ and claimants’ healthcare coverage under the Interim Federal Health Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Healthcare is political.” That phrase seems obvious. While healthcare is constitutionally a provincial responsibility, it has become a hallmark of Canadian federalism with all levels of government taking part in its function. Furthermore, it has become one of the core Canadian values, with Canadians continuing to place healthcare as the strongest symbol of their national identity. Yet, as future physicians, medical students are wary of “getting political” in fear of taking sides, loosing impartiality, and losing focus on patient care. However, political actions and issues can have a significant impact on the clinical practices of all physicians. This article will argue that changes to the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) have hindered the ability of physicians to provide best practice, evidence-based medicine, and will outline how members of the medical profession, including University of Ottawa medical students, have played an important role in advocating for those affected by the changes to the IFHP.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".