Comment Commentary on: ‘‘The future of health care in Canada’’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
and colleagues have produced a thoughtful article in the British Medical Journal w1x on the challenges facing the Canadian health care system. Lewis et al. point out that the Canadian health care system, an icon of Canadian values, is going through a period of turbulence and a crisis of confidence. They rightly point out that Canadians continue to favour a publicly funded, comprehensive health care system, but seem pessimistic about whether it is sustainable; and that increasing privatisation, in numerous forms, has crept into the system. Though numerous reports from federal and provincial governments have called for substantial reforms, the authors feel that achieving a consensus among players in the health care field remains elusive. To date, after withdrawing
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 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.073 | 0.053 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.008 |
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".