Bibliographic record
Abstract
Roy Romanow has promised Canada's doctors that clarity and speedy action will be the watchwords for recommendations emerging from his much-anticipated report on the future of medicare. Speaking at the CMA's 135th annual meeting Aug. 20, the former Saskatchewan premier said Canadians could start seeing improvements in medicare within “a few short months” of his report's November release, although some improvements will definitely take longer. And governments will reject his report at their peril, he warned. “If the report … resonates with [Canadians'] values and with how they think the system can be repaired [and the government then rejects it], I think that is a prescription for political suicide.” He also promised to concentrate on several key problem areas and will not offer “5500 recommendations.” Although he is still finalizing those recommendations, Romanow dropped a couple of broad hints about issues they might address, including the Canada Health Act. “The CHA was … great for its time but I think it needs revision.” One of the greatest challenges the system faces is public expectations about what medicare will and will not provide. Romanow argued that sustainability depends on realistic expectations. “No one thought in 1962 that medicare would cover everything for everybody.” With that in mind, the report will contain an evidence-based section on adequate funding. Romanow also pledged to make the delivery of health care a healthier occupation: “A healthy workplace should be the first pillar of Canada's health human resource strategy.” The second pillar is a system that provides the best care in a timely fashion according to the best evidence available, and the third is adequate public funding. Over the past 15 months, Romanow's commission has received 600 presentations from groups such as the CMA and more than 10 000 emails and letters. — Barbara Sibbald, CMAJ
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.100 | 0.058 |
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".