MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2994410044

Private and Government Funding: The Case of the Moncton Hospital, 1898-1953

2001· article· en· W2994410044 on OpenAlexaffabout
W.G. Godfrey

Bibliographic record

VenueÉrudit (Université de Montréal) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)RevenueMillerPublic hospitalPublic administrationFeelingAgency (philosophy)Political sciencePublic relationsPsychologyBusinessSociologyFinanceMedicineNursingSocial psychologySocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IN JANUARY 1941 HOSPITALS WERE a cross-roads never before reached in history, Moncton Hospital superintendent Alena J. MacMaster informed her board. An entirely new philosophy of hospital financing had come of age, she said. now seemed widely accepted that and voluntary philanthropy as a source of revenue would be supplanted by or alternative forms of support.1 In reality, as MacMaster was well aware, this shift of responsibility was not a sudden epiphany but rather had been underway at her own institution throughout the interwar years. She also knew that this transformation of public attitude and policy was far from complete. Nevertheless, her remarks revealed quite a substantial change in hospital funding perceptions compared to the optimistic expectations of the Moncton Hospital's first president, George B. Willett, roughly 45 years earlier. As he stated in 1895, It was not proposed to build this hospital on the charity plan. A few years later, he was elated that receipts from paying patients [had] considerably increased2 and were becoming ever more important. This reliance on private support contrasted with MacMaster' s 1941 perception of a shift to government or alternative forms of support. But both situations were some distance away from the late 1950s, when hospital care insurance measures and a Public Hospitals Act, as Hugh J. Whalen noted, vested control of hospital services largely in provincial hands and imposed a premium-type insurance program applicable to all users.3 To a considerable extent, the Moncton Hospital completed the journey from a largely privately funded hospital to an increasingly governmentally funded institution during the 1898 to 1953 period. In the area of major capital expenditures, private donations had been supplanted by grants from various levels of government. Operating costs were, by the 1950s, met by enhanced provincial contributions, by a more substantial municipal and county role in hospital finances and by patient payments, whether direct or from a third party (government or hospital insurance schemes). A focus on changing patterns in hospital finances from the vantage point of a single institution allows for exploration of an often neglected issue which is

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0250.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0080.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.162 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉrudit (Université de Montréal)→Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→