Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada's aging population is likely to result in increased health and long-term care (LTC) costs. It is estimated that between 2012 and 2046, LTC cost liability could reach almost $1.2 trillion. Many Canadians are unaware of the potential burden of LTC expenditures, and there is no consensus on who should pay for them. There are four possible options: (1) general tax revenues; (2) social insurance (employer/employee contributions); (3) private purchase of LTC insurance; and (4) private savings. This paper reviews these options as they have materialized to date in Canada and other countries. Despite the growing acuity of this issue, it seems unlikely that a universal, publicly funded approach to LTC will emerge in Canada. It is clear that federal and provincial/territorial governments must continue to explore policy options for LTC funding including public education, prevention and mitigation strategies and provision for tax-sheltered savings specifically for LTC.
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".