Combining the Knowledge of Federalism Researchers, Health Care Researchers, and Policy Practitioners to Understand and Improve Canadian Health Care Federalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book has its origins in the collaboration of most of the authors in presenting a pre-conference workshop on health care federalism at the meeting of the Canadian Association for Health Services and Policy Research that took place in Halifax in May 2011 (Canadian Association for Health Services and Policy Research 2011). At that time, just days after the re-election of the Harper Conservatives with a majority government in a national election, the focus was very much on what were generally thought to be the upcoming federal- provincial-territorial negotiations for a new intergovernmental health deal to replace the 10-Year Plan on Strengthening Health Care (appendix 2) that expires in 2014. Our objective was to under- stand and, we hoped, contribute to this process of negotiation through multidisciplinary analyses that combined the perspectives of individuals who approached the study of health care federalism primarily as scholars of federalism with those of individuals who approached it primarily as scholars of health care, and to supple- ment these perspectives with the perspectives of colleagues experienced in the world of public policy at the interface of federalism and health care. Canada’s health care federalism now seems to be at a very different kind of juncture. Through Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, the federal government has told the provinces that federal health care funding after the expiry of current federal funding commitments based on the 10-year plan will be fixed to the prevailing rate of economic growth and be distributed among the provinces on a per capita basis (Bailey and Curry 2011). The absence of any negotiation – even of advance notice – of this approach to health care financing and the disinterest in any reciprocating provincial (and territorial) commit- ments on health care reform signal unmistakably that the brief age of the federal-provincial-territorial health care accord as we have known it in Canadian health care federalism has come to a close, at least for now.
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 | 0.047 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".