Normative moment of National Health Plans of Brazil and Canada in the light of Mario Testa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The study aims to compare the main guidelines of the National Health Plans of Brazil and Canada in the light of Mario Testa. The normative moment of both documents were compared, considering the guidelines of the mentioned plans, analyzed according to the strategies of strategic thinking addressed by Mario Testa. The Atlas.ti program was used, exploring as analysis categories the keywords that identify each of the guidelines, as well as the three strategies: institutional, programmatic, and social. As main results, we find that the national health plans of Brazil and Canada converge on the keywords related to care actions directly, although the North American country plans a greater number of health surveillance activities compared to Brazil. Both countries guide the normative moment of planning through programmatic strategies, which are intersectoral in the Brazilian scenario. Differences point to intersectoral action in Brazil and the organization of care with well-defined hierarchical levels of health care. However, the predominance of programmatic strategies in Canada allows us to infer that this scenario enjoys the consolidation of decision-making processes, as well as ensuring the social rights of the population, resulting in specific institutional and social strategies.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".