A review of Reid TR (2009): the healing of America: a global quest for better, cheaper, and fairer health care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Healing of America is a quick overview through the health care systems of several foreign countries including Canada France Japan and Britain Author Reid TR using an old Navy shoulder injury as a common device for his worldwide tour seeks to categorize and inform the reader about how every other industrialized country tackled the problem of universal health care coverage and the challenges each system will face in the future We learn about the sickness funds of Germany the carte vitales of France the National Health Service of Britain and the long long lines of Canada Reid s thoughtful articulate and accurate descriptors about foreign health care systems provide complete and unbiased views of systems we could learn from and adapt to meet patients rsquo needs He suggests that we can bring about fundamental changes in our system through borrowing ideas from systems of care delivery and financing elsewhere None of these comparator systems is perfect and Reid points out flaws consistently and fairly I definitely recommend this book for persons in health related professions It is a great book to use as a reference for personal elucidation and for stimulating discussion and interchange in terms of health care reform health care delivery public health and public health policy change
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".