Canada’s Fatal Error- Health Care as a Right
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is something wrong with medicine in Canada today. This conclusion can and probably has been reached by any member of the profes-sion who has paused from his or her daily endeavors to consider the cur-rent state of medicine in this country. Despite rather remarkable advances in the art and science of medicine patient care is deteriorating. The availability of medical services is diminishing and waiting lists are growing longer. Pa-tients are often obliged to seek medi-cal care in facilities far from home. The cost of health care in Canada has been spiraling upwards out of control, and predictions for the future portend the collapse of what was once an ex-cellent health care system. Caught in the middle of the unfolding disaster is the Canadian physician. On one side, the profession finds itself beset by abusive govern-ments that seek to offset the collapse by controlling the physician and the way he practices his profession. On the other side is the public who, for the past quarter century has been told by the organizers of socialized medi-cine that health care is now free, and that all they need do is to profess a need for any service and it will be provided. With the consequent open (Right—Continued on page 5)
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 | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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".