Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Constitution of Canada sets out the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments. Unlike provinces, territories are created by federal statute and not by the Constitution. They therefore have no inherent power, only that which is transferred to them by the federal government. While jurisdiction over matters relating to health rests with provincial governments, the federal government has jurisdiction over "Indians and lands reserved for Indians." These two sections create complications around who has jurisdiction, and therefore responsibility, over health services with respect to "Indians". The issue of jurisdiction with respect to health is made all the more complicated in the context of the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, where jurisdiction is not guaranteed in the Constitution. In 1954, the federal government assumed responsibility for the delivery of health services to all citizens of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. The federal and territorial governments agreed that this would be preferable over a system where the responsibility for health services would be shared between two levels of government, with the federal government being responsible for "Indians" living in the territories and the territorial governments responsible for everyone else. However in the 1980's, health care began to be gradually transferred back to the territorial governments thus bringing the territories more in line with provinces in terms of the responsibility for health services. This paper will compare and contrast the processes through which responsibility for health care services has been devolved from the federal government to the three territorial governments.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".