MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4297814997 · doi:10.46692/9781447352167.006

The role of medical doctors in healthcare reforms in two Canadian provinces

2022· other· en· W4297814997 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth carePolitical scienceFamily medicineGeographyMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The federal context The federal context in Canada warrants attention as it influences the negotiating space for provincial governments and medical doctors. While healthcare services are mostly under provincial jurisdiction (Section 92, Constitution Act 1867), the federal government plays an important role, particularly by using its spending power to uphold national standards (for example, with respect to insurance coverage for services provided in hospital or by medical doctors via the Canada Health Act, 1985).1 To various degrees and at different times in the history of Medicare in Canada, provincial governments have seen federal spending intervention as an attempt to exert control in a provincial domain (see Commission d’enquête sur la santé et le bien-être social, 1967– 1972, for example). Frustrations were especially high when the federal government significantly reduced its financial contribution to provincial health systems during the recession of the 1990s (CPHA, 1995; Snoddon, 1998; BCMA, 2000: 14) while still requiring that provinces meet the same national standards. Spending power is the federal government's main means of influencing provincial or territorial health insurance plans. As part of the reformative social policy agenda that emerged after the Second World War, the federal government adopted the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act in 1957. Under the Act, the federal government would cover approximately 50 per cent of provincial and territorial expenses for hospital and diagnostic services, conditional on provinces or territories respecting criteria such as universality (such criteria would later be integrated into the Canada Health Act). As Medicare historian Malcolm Taylor describes, ‘the majority of provincial governments, previously relatively unconcerned with the economic and health problems of their citizens, now had to face both an aroused public opinion and, for the first time, the prospects of the compelling pressures of provincial grants inducing them to action in an area clearly of provincial constitutional jurisdiction’ (Taylor, 2009: 68). In 1966, the federal government passed the Medical Care Act. Again, the federal government would finance approximately 50 per cent of the costs of medical services provided in provincial programmes that met certain criteria. Ultimately, these federal Acts forced the establishment of publicly funded provincial health insurance regimes across the country between 1968 and 1972, primarily focused on curative 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0400.010
Scholarly communication0.0100.002
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.407 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→