La “portabilita” dell’assistenza sanitaria in Canada: il principio meno rispettato del Canada Health Act 1984?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Per poter ottenere i trasferimenti federali destinati al finanziamento dei sistemi sanitari provinciali, ogni Provincia ha l’obbligo di rispettare i cinque principi, le condizioni e i divieti stabiliti dal CHA 1984, che non sembrano però avere tutti la stessa importanza e vincolatività nei confronti delle Province. Per quanto riguarda il principio di portabilità dell’assicurazione sanitaria pubblica spostandosi da una Provincia all’altra oppure recandosi all’estero, le Province sembrano infatti conservare una maggiore autonomia nel riconoscere i rimborsi ai propri residenti cui siano state erogate cure di emergenza e/o urgenti fuori Provincia. L’A. si sofferma sui casi del Quebec, in cui la portabilità è attuata in modo particolarmente restrittivo, e dell’Ontario alla luce della sentenza della Superior Court of Justice Canadian Snowbird Association Inc. v. Attorney General of Ontario del 2020. In order to qualify for Federal transfers to finance Provincial healthcare systems, each Province is required to comply with the five principles, conditions, and bans set forth in CHA 1984, but these do not all seem to be equally binding on the Provinces. Regarding the principle of portability of public health insurance by moving from one Province to another or traveling abroad, the Provinces in fact seem to retain more autonomy in granting reimbursements to their residents who have been provided emergency and/or urgent care outside the Province. The A. addresses the cases of Quebec, where portability is implemented in a particularly restrictive manner, and Ontario in light of the Superior Court of Justice’s decision Canadian Snowbird Association Inc. v. Attorney General of Ontario in 2020.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".