1. Private Finance and Canadian Medicare: Learning from History
Bibliographic record
Abstract
F rom the time that medicare was conceived to the present day, there has always been a polarized debate on the issue of private finance in Canadian medicare.Initially, in the early decades of medicare, the ongoing negative view of medicare by the medical profession, despite medicare's growing popularity in the general population, was perpetuated by perceived constraints on the ability of physicians to maximize profits, especially the restrictions on extra-billing introduced by the federal government through the Canada Health Act and the banning of extra-billing by some provincial governments.1 In recent years, the debate has been spurred by the less-than-satisfactory performance in terms of timeliness and quality in the provision of health services, especially Canada's relatively poor performance in successive international surveys published by the Commonwealth Fund, a health policy think tank based in the United States. 2 1 Carolyn J Tuohy, "Medicine and the State in Canada" (1988) 21:2 Can J of Pol Science 267 at 279-81; S Heiber and R Deber, "Banning Extra-Billing in Canada: Just What the Doctor Didn't Order" (1987) 13:1 Can Pub Pol'y 62 at 62-64. 2The Commonwealth Fund's 2017 international survey comparing eleven high-income countries ranked Canada ninth overall, largely due to its relatively poor performance on access, equity, and health care outcomes.See Eric C Schneider et al, Mirror, Mirror 2017: International Comparison Reflects Flaws and Opportunities for Better US Health Care (New York: Commonwealth Fund, 2017).Numerous 12 Ronald Hayter, "'Manningcare' cheered by Alberta Doctors," Toronto Star (29 March 1963) 1-2.13 Cam Traynor, "Manning against Medicare" (1995) 43 Alta Hist 7 at 7-19;Marchildon, "Douglas versus Manning," supra note 9 at 143.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".