Bibliographic record
Abstract
History is full of what-ifs and longings for a do-over.What if Napoleon and Hitler hadn't invaded Russia or the Lenape Indians had held onto half of Manhattan in 1626 rather than taking the extra $12?Sometimes you get a do-over: the Montreal Alouettes' Damon Duval missed the game-winning field goal on the last play of the 2009 Grey Cup against the Saskatchewan Roughriders but got a do-over because the Riders had 13 men on the field.He made that one.Rider Nation yearned for a do-over to avoid the fatal do-over.So what do we make of federalism in Canadian health care?Federalism is the result of multiple levels of government co-existing within a common jurisdiction.A federation is a coming together of parties to advance their common interests.Sometimes the union is involuntary, as in the old Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.Such federations break apart at the first opportunity.In Canada, as in the United States, the constituent parts decided that on balance, ceding some autonomy and making common cause with each other was preferable to standing alone.The resulting union is fundamentally a bargain and a tradeoff that over time requires adjustments, accommodations, and recalibrations.There are bound to be "if we knew then what we know now" debates about the wisdom of constitutional arrangements and negotiated agreements.Modern health care wasn't even a gleam in the eye of the architects of Confederation in 1864 and 1867.How much simpler matters would be had it found its way into section 91 instead of section 92 of the (then) British North America Act.Would matters truly have been simpler?Health care is never simple and free of tension.It is just as fractious in England's unitary system as it is in Canada's federalist system.There have been periods of coop-Preface xi
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.611 | 0.431 |
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".