Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data released last year indicate that Canada tied for fourth among 27 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 1998 in terms of health spending as a percentage of the country's gross domestic product (GDP). The United States devoted the highest percentage of GDP to health (13.6%), followed by Germany (10.6%) and Switzerland (10.4%). Canada was tied with France at 9.5% of GDP Canada's relative position and spending level have been steady for several years. Canada also placed fifth in per-capita spending on health, behind the US, Switzerland, Germany and Norway. Canada spent $2312 per person on health in 1998 ($US purchasing power parity), compared with $1461 spent in the United Kingdom. Per-capita spending in the US, at $4178, more than doubled that of Australia, $2036. When public spending as a percentage of total health expenditures is considered, Canada fell to 18th position. The OECD data show that 69.6% of total spending was financed by the public purse in 1998, although recent statistics from the Canadian Institute for Health Information indicate that this percentage is increasing and is estimated to stand at 70.4% in 2000. —
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.012 |
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".