MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2595084442

Inching towards a Federal Pharmaceutical Plan in Canada: Application of Multiple Streams Theory and Punctuated Equilibrium Theory

2016· article· en· W2595084442 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vidhi Thakkar

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health: Annual Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPunctuated equilibriumContext (archaeology)Plan (archaeology)Public administrationPolitical scienceGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The lack of a national pharmacare strategy in Canada is a pressing health policy issue. Current provincial drug plans are not designed to equitably cover chronic conditions such as diabetes and hypertension. Universal pharmacare has cost-saving implications. A recent report by the Canadian Institute for HEalth Information showed that Canadians spent $28.8 billion on prescription drugs. The objective of this paper is to apply Kingdon’s multiple streams theory in the analysis of the lack of a national pharmaceutical strategy. Baumgartner and Jones’ theory of punctuated equilibrium is applied to explain why, despite the momentum building in Canada, there has been stasis in the creation of a national pharmaceutical plan. The paper concludes with a set of necessary and sufficient conditions that provide a context for successful implementation of a national pharmaceutical policy

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Health: Annual ReviewSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207