Bibliographic record
Abstract
(CHA) (1985). The key provision of this legislation was the stipulation that medically necessary healthcare provided in hospitals, or by physicians, was to be publicly insured. The point was to provide access to medically necessary healthcare independent of the ability to pay. This commentary suggests that the contours of healthcare in Canada have shifted substantially since the development of medicare and that, because of these changes, the CHA (1985) no longer facilitates either accessibility or equity. Owing to the "deep but narrow" provision of healthcare services, key aspects of contemporary healthcare (including pharmaceuticals and mental healthcare) are often not publicly insured. At the same time, because of changes in who provides medically necessary care, and where and how it is provided, many Canadians are increasingly able to access these services independently of public insurance. Somewhat paradoxically, the rigid structure of the CHA (1985) has both diminished access to publicly insured healthcare, on the one hand, and has permitted the emergence of two-tier healthcare, on the other. Achieving better access to, and equity in, healthcare provision will require a fundamental rethinking of the nexus between federal funding mechanisms and the regulatory landscape in the provincial/territorial [ PT] domain.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".