White coats in the streets : physician advocacy and the Interim Federal Health Program in Canada, 2012-2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In April 2012, Canada’s federal Conservative government quietly announced drastic reforms to the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP), a policy designed to provide temporary healthcare coverage to refugees, refugee claimants, asylum seekers, and other precarious status groups. The decision shocked physicians across the country, prompting them to coordinate and engage in four years of direct action against the Harper government to protest the reform. Drawing on semistructured interviews with 16 physicians across Canada, as well as a relevant sample of media content from 2012 to 2016, this thesis explores the multiple and changing ways in which physicians understood both their profession and ‘Canada’ during (and after) the period of reform. I engage with literature on the IFHP reform, health social movement scholarship, and medical literature on physician advocacy, as addressing this topic thoroughly requires an interdisciplinary approach. I argue that the physician-led health social movement around the IFHP reform resulted, in part, from physicians’ sense that the Harper government’s policy clashed with their responsibilities as Canadian physicians and their imaginings of the Canadian nation as humanitarian and communitarian. In fighting against this clash, physicians engaged in actions traditionally deemed ‘activist,’ which challenged conventional interpretations of the CanMEDS Health Advocate Role, thus pushing the boundaries of what is expected of their profession in Canada. This research contributes to current conversations in Canada regarding the CanMEDS Health Advocate Role and teaching physician advocacy, as well as to geographic studies of professions and their expertise.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".