Issues and Commentaries Issues et commentaires Health Care in Regression: Contradictions, Tensions and Implications for Canadian Seniors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le vieillissement et les aînés posent des problèmes difficiles aux plans néolibéraux de réforme des soins de santé et au concept de réduction des coûts. Les aînés sont affectés directement, et souvent les premiers, par le changement des priorités dans les soins de santé et en même temps, influencent les changements appor-tés. Les contradictions, les tensions et les implications des tendances courantes dans le système de santé canadien sont analysées sur cinq plans: l’importance que les canadiens attachent aux soins de santé, leur attitude envers les réductions de coûts, la bonne santé et la longévité en tant que legs, leur vision des réformes dans le secteur de la santé comparativement à la réalité de même que la santé vue comme un bien public/ privé. Les contradictions abondent et il y a une différence significative entre les tendances actuelles des réformes des soins de santé et l’opinion publique. Aging and seniors pose perplexing dilemmas to neoliberal agendas of health care “reform ” and the concept of cost-cutting efficiency. At the same time, seniors are affected directly, and often first, by shifting health care priorities and processes, and they influence health care change. Contradictions, tensions and implica-tions of current trends in Canadian health care are explored along five dimensions: the valuing of public health care by Canadians, attitudes toward cost-reductions, good health and longevity as intergenerational legacies, the vision of health care reform versus the reality, and health as a private/public good. Contradic-tions abound as well as a significant gap between current health care reform tendencies and public opinion.
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 | 0.020 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".