Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | high |
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 | 0.054 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".