General commentary on access to cardiovascular care in Canada: universal access, but when? Treating the right patient at the right time.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2004, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society formed an Access to Care Working Group with a mandate to use the best science and information available to establish reasonable triage categories and safe wait times for common cardiovascular services and procedures through a series of commentaries. The present commentary is the first in the series and lays out issues regarding timely access to care that are common to all cardiovascular services and procedures. The commentary briefly describes the 'right' to timely access, wait lists as a health care system management tool, and the role of the physician as patient advocate and gatekeeper. It also provides advice to funders, administrators and providers who must monitor and manage wait times to improve access to cardiovascular care in Canada and restore the confidence of Canadians in their publicly funded health care system.
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 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.044 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".