Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The political and administrative organization of health care in Canada is marked by inherent complexity and diversity. Health care in Canada is not characterized by a single health care system; rather, there are many health care systems operating within the country. All levels of government, from the federal, to the provincial, to the territorial, and to local government, are involved at varying degrees in the administration, financing, and delivery of public health care. The private sector has a dominant role in health care as well. This involvement of the public and private sectors in the delivery of public health care and the line between public and private sectors within health care have remained hotly disputed issues. Political parties that are conservative and market oriented emphasize individual responsibility, the impact of incentives on individuals, and the limits of government funding, as well as the administering and delivering of health care. Political parties who are marked by a more social–moral ethos, on the other hand, highlight the role of collective responsibility, the obstacles to access to health care due to patient fees, and the administrative efficiencies of a single-payer public administration. In addition, there has been a debate on the role of the central government in a federation where the provinces have considerable authority and responsibility under the current constitution and where the unrelenting threat of Quebec secession has pushed the federation for asymmetrical administrative arrangements. This article discusses the politics of health care in Canada. It discusses the political history of Canadian health care, the contemporary political organization of the nation's health care, and the federal–provincial collaboration and conflict on issues of health care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.350 | 0.095 |
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".