Canada Health Act 2.0: Are the Fundamental Principles Still Current, or Do They Need to be Revisited?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canada Health Act was passed in the run-up to the 1984 Federal Election to meet a political problem - perceived inequities in access to care due to extra-billing by physicians and hospitals. At that time, health care as a right of citizenship was still a topic of debate. Health care was for the sick, and effective interventions were few and inexpensive. The provision of health care was seen as a morally justified social cost. Today the problem is different. We are in the midst of the largest transformation in biological understanding since the invention of the microscope. New treatments are being found powerfully effective, yet costly. A new, high value added, economic sector has developed: health innovation. Health care is an unquestioned social right. Yet, although a disproportionate amount of the foundational science has come from Canada, increasingly we are unable to access the medical, economic and social benefits of a global health economy. We need a permissive, catalytic, legislative framework (CHA 2.0) that will bring together the economic strength of health innovation and the delivery of its benefits to the health and wellness of Canadians. It would espouse the following seven principles: 1. Health care and health innovation are parts of a nationally critical health economy, with a global perspective. 2. Public and private sector involvement and accountability. 3. Change and innovation mandated and rewarded. 4. Labour mobility across jurisdictions, and role mobility across professions. 5. Patient-centred care. 6. Holistic and comprehensive, based on evidence. 7. Outcome (not process) driven, and transparent in implementation.
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 | 0.026 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.028 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".