Bibliographic record
Abstract
sustainability I was surprised to read the editorial by Hébert and colleagues, which implied that Canada’s health care system is financially sustainable when the evi-dence clearly shows that it is not.1 From 2000–2009, the federal government’s revenue increased 22%,2,3 and Ontario’s revenue increased 49%.4,5 Meanwhile, Ontario’s health care costs increased by an unsustainable 88%.4,5 With rapidly expanding expensive investigative tools, treatments and medications in conjunction with a free, comprehensive, universal health care system, both patients and physi-cians are being persuaded to perceive of “limitless essential services.” Unfortunately, we do not have “limit-less funds. ” There is no Canadian politician or leading physician who is prepared to state clearly that health services must be limited to those that are justified and tort reform must be introduced. Any provincial health costs that exceed perhaps 35 % of provincial program spending should be raised from premiums and a portion of health care expenses based on a patient’s ability to pay. Very fair, very Canadian.
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 | 0.040 | 0.210 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.009 |
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".