MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2279296484 · doi:10.30097/fjmh.200205.0009

The Canadian Medical Insurance and the Care of the Elderly A Lesson for Taiwan

2002· article· en· W2279296484 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Cheng-tek Tai

Bibliographic record

VenueDigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDignityGovernment (linguistics)Health careSocial securityBusinessEconomic growthPublic relationsPolitical scienceLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a study of the health insurance, especially the care of the elderly in Canada and how these Canadian programs could help Taiwan to develop a qualitative care for its citizens. The characteristics of the Canadian health insurance system as revealed through its upheld principle are namely, universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability and public administration. These principles have served as guidelines to all Canadian health care programs. In regard to the care of the elderly in Canada, the best example is Ontario's program of Human Habitat. This program is based on idea called the Eden Alternative which emphasizes a wholistic atmosphere of a living environment. Home care is another way the Canadian government developed to enhance the elderly's self-worth by helping them live in their own familiar homes with dignity and comfort. Taiwan is contemplating a social program to help her elderly. A monthly cheque similar to the Canadian old age pension is under consideration at the moment. Would Taiwan develop a good qualitative program? If so, the Canadian system could serve as good model for Taiwan to ponder.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library)Same topicAging, Elder Care, and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207