Quebec Reforms from Rochon to Couillard: The Long and Winding Road
Bibliographic record
Abstract
QuebeC reforms from roChon to CouiLLard: the Long and winding road marie-PasCaLe Pomey, eLisabeth martin, and Pierre-gerLier forest introduCtion Quebec's health and social services system has been under tremendous pressure since the beginning of the 1990s.The manner in which the Quebec governments in the period under study, 1990 to 2003, responded to these pressures was at once similar to and yet different from the way in which other provinces responded.The similarity reflected the common exposure to new realities such as the information technology revolution (with implications both for management of health services and clinical practice), the availability of effective but expensive new breakthrough drugs, the stress on public finances, and the aging of the population.The difference was in part due to history.The growth of the welfare state in Canada (especially from 1963 to 1968, the Pearson years), including health services, coincided with the flowering of Quebec's Quiet Revolution.Where other provinces looked to Ottawa for leadership, Quebec blazed its own trail.As the one jurisdiction in North America with a French-speaking majority, Quebec's situation was unique.The determination to preserve and enhance this uniqueness was shared by most French-speaking Quebecers.Accordingly, francophone Quebecers relied on the Quebec state, the key institution that they controlled, to promote modernity and solidarity.One area of difference between Quebec and other provinces that affected health services was in public administration.By the beginning of the 1990s, Quebec's health system had been regionalized for two decades.Its regional infrastructure thus had deeper roots than elsewhere in Canada.A second was in the role of labour.Where
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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".