Quelle est la Part des Regimes Publics d’Assurance- Medicament aux Resultats de Sante? Une Etude de Cas Multiples au Nouveau-Brunswick, en Ontario, et au Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian provincial and territorial drug plans vary considerably in terms of eligibility criteria, and most of the insurance plans provided are subject to caps, cost sharing and exclusions. In fact, Canadians have unequal access to prescription medications, depending on their socio-economic status and place of residence. This comes at time then the effects of population aging, an increasing number of people with multiple chronic illnesses and innovations in the prescription medications field have brought about an increase in spending on these products. The question raised by this study is does a province with a better prescription drug plan have a healthier population? This study compared coverage of prescription drug plans among people 65 years old and over in three provinces: New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec. The results of our study suggest that senior citizen health does not seem to improve. Therefore, it is impera- tive that additional research be conducted to determine the true impact of prescription drug plans on health outcomes. This would allow for the creation of tailor-made, better-targeted programs and policies to meet community needs more adequately.
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 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 | 0.121 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".