MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904982269

RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND THE STANDARD OF CARE OF PHYSICIANS

2004· article· en· W2904982269 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessHealth careGovernment (linguistics)LiabilityResource allocationQuality (philosophy)Public relationsEconomicsPolitical scienceLawFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Often referred to as the ‘gate keepers’ of the health care system, physicians, as the primary providers of medical care, are increasingly required to implement the resource allocation decisions made at the various levels of government and health care administration. To date, courts have been unwilling to alter the standard of care imposed on physicians to reflect systemic realities or to recognize the defense of economic justification in medical liability claims. Instead, they have responded by extending the standard of care and, in some cases, requiring that physicians assume heightened obligations to act as advocates for their patients. If, as it appears, the prevailing principles of professional and civil liability are not sufficiently flexible to adapt to the consequences of costcontainment measures, alternative mechanisms must be available for physicians to protect themselves from professional liability. In Quebec, the provisions of the Act Respecting Health Care Services and Social Services may serve that purpose. First, the Act recognizes the resource limitations inherent in the health care system and expressly provides health institutions with the latitude to make decisions about how to allocate the resources available. Second, it circumscribes the physician’s disclosure obligations to the patient with respect to service limitations and institutionalizes the physician’s role in the administration of the hospital. Finally, the most recent amendments to the Act, which provide for the creation of risk management and quality control committees, provide physicians with a formal procedure to signal deficiencies, report ‘near misses’ and highlight any weaknesses or risk factors within the system.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.354 · 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