Public Perceptions of the Cost of Paramedic Services in Saskatchewan, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Despite the increasingly important role of paramedics in Canada's healthcare system, the Canadian Health Act does not cover paramedic services. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the cost of paramedic services prevents many people in need from accessing this care. This article explores public perceptions of the cost of paramedic services in Saskatchewan, Canada. Methods Using a qualitative research design, we collected data from 56 participants in focus group sessions and semi-structured interviews designed to explore perceptions of paramedic services in Saskatchewan. Results The data indicated that participants perceived the cost of paramedic services to be too high, and that this perception may limit the use of paramedic services during medical emergencies. The data also suggested a lack of understanding of how paramedic service costs are calculated. Overall, participants expected the government to do more to subsidise these costs. Conclusion The results revealed a disconnect between public perceptions about the cost of paramedic services and the initiatives designed by the provincial government to alleviate these costs. They also highlight the need for better public education about and access to government programs designed to alleviate the cost of paramedic services.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".