Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s fragmented healthcare system is one of the most expensive among the OECD countries, yet the quality of its performance is mediocre at best. Canada lacks a system-wide healthcare strategy that brings together many individual federal, provincial, and territorial strategies into a comprehensive and coherent whole. Managing a Canadian Healthcare Strategy is a collection of ten policy research essays by leading Canadian and international scholars who address three important questions. First, if Canada had a unifying strategy, how would the country measure its success and monitor its performance? Second, who are the agents of change to bring about a Canadian system-wide strategy? Third, how can the jurisdictional realities of Canada’s political system be managed to bring about strategic reform? The final section in the volume explores ways to overcome the barriers and impediments that preoccupy Canadians’ concerns about healthcare. A companion volume to Toward a Healthcare Strategy for Canadians, the contributors to Managing a Canadian Healthcare Strategy turn to the critical importance of how necessary healthcare changes can be best implemented.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".