Bibliographic record
Abstract
As we begin the twenty-first century, "medicare" is a defining characteristic of being Canadian, although most would be hard pressed to define it even in general terms.It is our most cherished -and single most expensive -social program.Repeated public opinion polls show that medicare's preservation, indeed its expansion and enhancement, is in a class by itself among government expenditures for which people seem prepared to pay more rather than less in taxes.There is a strong commitment to share publicly the financial risk of disease and injury -risk that, before medicare, was borne alone by those affected, their families, and those who would extend them charity.This commitment is widely shared from coast to coast and is a tribute to the coherence and underlying goodness of contemporary Canadian society.Yet medicare, shorthand for Canada's health care system, is not what it seems.At best it is ten provincial and three territorial programs that use public money to insure people against the costs of hospital and physicians' services, loosely coordinated by virtue of their common adherence, more or less, to the five principles of the Canada Health Act of 1984 .At worst, there is no system , using the word in its ordinary sense to mean a collection of interrelated components or parts (physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, home care, etc.) acting together synergistically so both quality and productivity are greater than when each acts independently.This book makes the case that there is not now, nor can there ever be, a genuine health care system.Neither can there be continuity of care, because health care is unmanageable; at least it cannot be managed centrally or on a macro scale.The case is set out theoretically by application to health care of genealogical and ethical analyses x Foreword
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.706 | 0.651 |
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".