Reimagining Primary Care: A Pan-Canadian Perspective on the Canada Health Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(CHA) (1985) has the necessary components to help health systems achieve shared goals, but it has not been sufficient to meet contemporary challenges. Unimaginative and over-restrictive interpretations of this iconic legislation by federal and provincial/territorial governments, as well as opportunistic workarounds of private actors, are pushing health systems away from the vision of the Act's authors and the expectations of Canadians. Nowhere is this more critical than in primary care. Public expectations of primary care have been profoundly shaped by the CHA, and we suggest leveraging the well-timed and rigorously produced OurCare Standard to guide the path forward. While legislative reform is an option to achieve the Standard and the CHA principles, another is a pan-Canadian health organization mandated to build equity and evidence-informed recommendations for public coverage, bolstering the CHA rather than re-opening it.
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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".