MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396695816 · doi:10.1111/capa.12559

Who's to blame for the crisis of the healthcare system?

2024· article· en· W4396695816 on OpenAlexaff
Olivier Jacques, Marion Perrot

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlameAttributionGovernment (linguistics)Health careHealthcare systemPolitical scienceBusinessPsychologySocial psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using an original survey, we probe Canadians' evaluation of the performance of their healthcare system and their attribution of the blame for the system's problems. We show that more vulnerable and left‐wing respondents are more likely to believe that the system is in crisis. In turn, respondents having negative performance evaluations are more likely to blame poor provincial organization rather than insufficient federal funding. Perceiving that the system is in crisis and that poor organization is the main problem are associated with support for the imposition of national standards by the federal government as a condition for additional healthcare transfers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207