Health care entitlement and citizenship development: Re-evaluating the social rights thesis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As provincial governments devise health care reform strategies to respond to the changing dynamics of budgeting, federalism, and health, citizens resist changes to what they perceive to be social rights of citizenship. Such resistance is beneficial in that it serves to protect entitlement to a range of services and secure health care as a symbol of national identity. However, the right to health care has been defended categorically as an infungible, sustainable element of the state-society relationship in spite of the evolutionary nature of citizenship. As the universal health care system developed throughout the 1940s, 50s and 60s, and the range of available services expanded, citizens' expectations were elevated. And by 1980, when retrenchment was imminent, health care had become a symbol of Canadian identity, and as such, a politically charged policy field. The political potency of health care has proven to be a serious constraint to change at a time when decision-making for health care requires dynamism and flexibility, rather than stability and stasis. Further, the analysis presented indicates that Canada has entered a new stage of citizenship development. Continued defences of the right to health care cannot by themselves secure access and entitlement for all Canadians. What is needed, instead, is recognition of the multiplicity of differentiated citizenship claims across the country, an understanding of how those claims can be expressed and accommodated in public policy, and a strategy for identity-based communities informing and interacting with geographically-based entities.
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 | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".