The role of accounting in the delivery of health care to Canada’s Aboriginal population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the role that accounting plays in the delivery of health care to Canada’s First Nations, relying on the Health Centre of the Paul Band as a case study. While prior studies of relations between government and First Nations have focused on power, this study explores how relationships are formed and sustained in a network of actors with divergent interests. Drawing on practice theory (Schatzki, (1996) and Actor Network Theory (Latour, 1987), I investigate how accounting functions as a control device, and the role it plays in causing and resolving tensions in the network. The study also highlights how health care actors who are employees of both Government and the health center translate expressed government strategies into practices that sometimes produce unintended consequences. The study furthers understandings of Government-First Nations relationships and shows reasons that the outcomes of First Nations health care may be sub-par despite current levels of government spending. The variation in outcomes of health care in this band compared with outcomes for non-First Nations Canadians is explained through a novel concept (Structure Vs Practice), which reveals themes common to oppressive relations faced by First Nations in Canada and other countries. In conclusion, I propose that five themes bear on the outcomes of Canada’s First Nations health care programs: funding, barriers, enforcement, compliance, and self-determination.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".