Bibliographic record
Abstract
Total health care spending in Canada in 2003 is estimated to have reached $121.4 billion, according to a Canadian Institute for Health Information report. This increase of 4.6% (after inflation) over 2002, continues an upward spiral that began in 1996, following 5 years with annual increases of only 0.8%, according to National Health Expenditure Trends in Canada 1975–2003. Health care expenditures in 2003 are expected to represent 10% of the gross domestic product, which returns Canada to the peak level reached in 1992. Per capita spending is projected to reach $3839, $200 more than 2002. Among the provinces, Manitoba is expected to spend the most per capita in 2003 at $4220 followed by Alberta ($4010) and Ontario ($3945). Two of the big-ticket increases are for capital projects (up 65% in the last 5 years) and drug spending (up 45%). Spending on physician services has increased 28% over the same period and now represents less than 13% of total health expenditures. Hospitals rank first at 30% followed by drugs at 16%. The percentage of private spending has increased only slightly in the last decade from 28% to 30.1%, but is at an all-time high. The largest proportion of private spending (36%) goes to other professionals such as dentists (23%). A close second is spending on drugs (33%), with prescription drugs absorbing 23% and non-prescription drugs the remaining 10%. Have your say: All Canadian physicians will soon receive the National Physician Survey from CMA, the College of Family Physicians of Canada and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. The census gathers information on everything from practice setting to future plans. Physicians may also complete it online (www.cma.ca). — Lynda Buske, Associate Director of Research, CMA Figure
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.020 |
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".