What Happened to Health-Care Reform?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this issue... Access to health care and the sustainability of the system will remain problem-atic until governments and the public are willing to confront changes needed to bring the mismatch between the growth of costs and fiscal resources back into balance. The Study in Brief Public concern about access and government concern about the unsustainable growth of spending have prompted a number of high-profile commissions on health reform. This Commentary compares the recommendations of the Fyke, Mazankowski, Kirby, and Romanow reports, and evaluates the responses of governments in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Ottawa. Although all four reports make similar recommendations to improve delivery of core services, sharp differences emerge regarding fiscal sustainability, access, private sector involvement, coverage, and the role of the federal government. Kirby and Mazankowski directly address the problems of access and fiscal sustainability by recommending the establishment of access guarantees and strategies to generate additional revenues. Kirby and Mazankowski also favour some private sector delivery of publicly funded services, an approach that
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 | 0.015 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".