MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408673816 · doi:10.12927/hcpap.2025.27531

Portability and the Canada Health Act

2025· article· en· W4408673816 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Antonia Maioni

Bibliographic record

VenueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware portabilityBusinessComputer scienceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada’s healthcare system essentially remains the sum of its parts: provincial and territorial health plans guided by similar values, adhering to principles that have financial strings attached and “bound” together by portability and the spirit of reciprocity. To strengthen this sense of shared purpose and responsibility, we need to allow space for the federal government to encourage such reciprocity, and find ways to allow intergovernmental relationships between the provinces/territories to be enhanced.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0220.015
Scholarly communication0.0150.004
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0170.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.366 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be HealthySame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207