MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2507921257 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2015-056

Stakeholder Views on Privatization of the Quebec Health Care System

2016· article· en· W2507921257 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Marie‐Pascale Pomey, Raymond Hudon, Nicolas Van Schendel, Élisabeth Martin, Pierre-Gerlier Forest

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of CalgaryUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyStakeholderPublic administrationState (computer science)PoliticsGovernment (linguistics)Supreme courtCivil societyAction (physics)Political scienceHealth careBusinessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2005 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a landmark ruling in the debate on privatization of Quebec's health care system. The Quebec government subsequently made several decisions, such as lifting the ban on private insurance for some health services already offered in the public system. We interviewed 42 stakeholders who were involved in the decision process between 1999 and 2008 and analyzed their views. We identified three types of positions on privatization, based on two key factors raised in these encounters: (a) the ideological and political inertia of both civil society and the state and (b) the concerted action of stakeholders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0390.019
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.231
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207