MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2768026837 · doi:10.4000/books.pum.2811

Chapitre 2. Perspectives philosophiques sur l’accès aux soins de santé

2016· book-chapter· fr· W2768026837 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ryoa Chung

Bibliographic record

VenuePresses de l’Université de Montréal eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Est-il possible, au Québec, d’assortir le régime public des soins de santé d’un régime complémentaire privé ? Jusqu’à nouvel ordre, il n’y a pas de consensus clair au sein de notre société. C’est la raison pour laquelle j’aimerais relancer cette question en termes plus philosophiques. Je présenterai ici trois philosophes qui ont réfléchi aux principes de justice dans nos démocraties libérales : John Rawls, Norman Daniels et Ronald Dworkin.Rappelons qu’un débat important sur l’accès aux soins...

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.003

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePresses de l’Université de Montréal eBooks→Same topicHealthcare Systems and Practices→French-language works237,207→