Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le Conseil de la santé et du bien-être publiait en mars 2003 l’avis Le financement privé des services médicaux et hospitaliers. Son intention ? Analyser et commenter un changement qui s’annonce, à savoir celui de permettre que des fonds de source privée financent des services médicaux et hospitaliers. Or, tout indique qu’un tel changement serait peu judicieux pour le Québec. Ou bien le financement privé des services médicaux et hospitaliers est introduit modestement et sa contribution est nulle, ou bien il est introduit massivement et les changements qu’il commande dans l’économie générale du système de santé québécois en entrave la bonne marche : accès réduit, iniquité, coûts accrus, gestion alourdie, etc. Une telle analyse des conséquences du financement privé des services médicaux et hospitaliers ouvre la voie à une remise en question plus générale du financement privé des services sociosanitaires.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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".