MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317909875 · doi:10.1097/jac.0b013e31819941f3

A Conversation on Health in Canada

2009· article· en· W2317909875 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ambulatory Care Management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCanadian Sport Centre Pacific
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationPublic healthSoftware portabilityUniversality (dynamical systems)Health careHealthcare systemScope (computer science)Health administrationPublic relationsPolitical scienceBusinessNursingPublic administrationMedicinePsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2006, British Columbia launched a public consultation on how to strengthen the health system. We report on the processes and the inputs and views submitted and examine the perceived importance of universality and primary healthcare (PHC). Public response revealed strong support for the Canada Health Act, which upholds 5 principles: public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, and accessibility, and also a need for the system to be more open to innovation. It recognized that keys to improving population health and efficiency gains within the health system lie within the scope of PHC and that prevention, demand management, and self-management are all part of PHC.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.346 · 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