Foreign Practices: Immigrant Doctors and the History of Canadian Medicare. Sasha Mullally and David Wright
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Foreign Practices: Immigrant Doctors and the History of Canadian Medicare, Canadian historians of health Sasha Mullally and David Wright examine the interconnected history of Canadian healthcare and immigration. In documenting the relationship between the healthcare system and foreign-born and trained medical practitioners, Mullally and Wright demonstrate the profound impact that these physicians had on the success of Medicare and, in turn, on the shaping of Canadian identity in the mid-twentieth century. This text fills a significant gap in the historiography; the authors note that the social history perspective has long been lacking and the history of this multifaceted relationship has been dominated instead by policy histories, resulting in the absence of health care providers’ voices. This is remedied in Foreign Practices through both a micro and macro analysis, as chapter by chapter the authors first narrow the lens using existing and newly collected oral histories, published memoirs, and obituaries, and then broaden it using institutionally created sources such as published journals and the records of government offices. Through this methodology, the authors not only examine the relationship between Canadian institutions and foreign-trained physicians but also contribute to a growing pool of transnational histories studying the ways immigration policies were shaped across the global north and how immigrant physicians have in turn shaped the healthcare systems in their new home countries. While approaching this topic from the national and global perspectives, the authors skillfully negotiate the nuances that have shaped regional identity as they explore the motivations of immigrant physicians to settle or migrate within Canada after their arrival.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".