MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7084122743 · doi:10.54932/ifmn4823

Investissements en santé publique au Québec et ailleurs au Canada

2025· report· fr· W7084122743 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)PoliticsGovernment (linguistics)Unit (ring theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

De récentes analyses de l’Institut canadien d’information sur la santé (ICIS) suggèrent que le Québec serait la province qui dépense le moins en santé publique. Mais est-ce vraiment le cas ? Dans un rapport CIRANO (Jacques et al., 2025), les auteurs se penchent sur cette question et offrent une nouvelle perspective sur les efforts du Québec en matière de santé publique. En scrutant les dépenses publiques de quatre provinces à partir d’une définition commune de la santé publique, ils montrent que l’ICIS tend à surestimer la dépense de santé publique dans toutes les provinces sauf au Québec. Une fois les catégories budgétaires harmonisées, les investissements en santé publique sont similaires d’une province à l’autre.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207