Bibliographic record
Abstract
THIS is A STUDY OF the development of the Canadian health insurance system.It is also a study of the policy-making process in federal and provincial governments that, over a period of thirty years, brought the system into being.Because hospital insurance and medical care insurance were introduced a decade apart, each province made two decisions, for a total of twenty.The federal government made three separate decisions, the first in 1945 in the famous Green Book Proposals, which was aborted, the second on hospital insurance in 1956, and the third on medical care insurance in 1966.While all of these were large and complex decisions for the governments making them, and all worthy of analysis, it was simply impossible to include all of them in this study.It was necessary, therefore, to select those decisions which were determinative, in that they launched the system and created the program design.Careful analysis indicates that there were six determinative decisions: the three by the federal government, that of Saskatchewan for hospital insurance in 1946 and similarly of Ontario in 1955, and Saskatchewan's decision on medicare in 1959.There was one other that, although not determinative, was of such importance as to warrant inclusion.Quebec's decision on medicare in 1970 reveals the extraordinary difficulties of government decision making in a federal state, and especially under the turbulent conditions that led to the October Crisis, with its simultaneous withdrawal of services by the Federation of Specialists.It is a graphic illustration of the problems created for provinces by federal initiatives in fields of provincial jurisdiction.There were, of course, earlier decisions by provincial governments that contributed to the evolution of health insurance in this country.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.440 | 0.196 |
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".