MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2784094951 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.733539

Tax changes should be seen as a gateway to a larger discussion on reform of public health care in Canada

2018· letter· en· W2784094951 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jillian Ratti, Michaela Beder, Vanessa Brcic, Gary Bloch, Lesley Barron, Monika Dutt, Samantha Green

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsCollege of Family Physicians of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGateway (web page)Government (linguistics)Common groundPublic relationsComputer scienceMedicineWorld Wide WebPolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We read with concern the recent editorial on the government’s proposal to eliminate certain tax advantages for incorporated physicians and other small businesses.[1][1] We appreciate the call for respect and maintaining common ground, and agree that a meaningful exchange of ideas, free of bullying

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.014
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0840.086
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→