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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Each province in Canada independently assesses drugs for their reimbursement eligibility. Publicly funded access to specific drugs is therefore dependent on province of residence. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the variability of access and its determinants for publicly available prescription drugs across Canada, and discuss the feasibility of implementing a national plan. METHODS: For a sample of 58 drugs receiving Health Protection Branch approval in Canada between 01/01/1996 and 12/31/1997, all provinces were surveyed about their formulary inclusion/exclusion decision. Kappa values were estimated to measure concordance between provincial coverage decisions. Logistic analysis using Generalized Estimating Equations was used to assess the impact of key features of provincial plans on the decision. RESULTS: Among the 58 drugs, 5 (9%) were included in all 10 and 14 (24%) by at least 8 provincial formularies. None were excluded by all the provinces. Concordance rates among provinces were low (overall kappa-like statistic = 0.20 and range of pairwise kappa = -0.11 to 0.64). Logistic regression showed that therapeutic category, price ratio to comparator, the integration of public with private coverage, and the existence of ability-to-pay criteria were significant determinants of the inclusion decision. CONCLUSIONS: Findings show that public access to the same prescription medications differs widely across provinces. If Canada were to adopt a "National" plan without disrupting current individual prescriptions, all currently funded drugs in each province would have to be "grandfathered" and included in the new National formulary. Such an all-inclusive list would also make such a plan unaffordable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.004 |
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 it