Regulating Physician Supply: The Evolution of British Columbia’s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This paper traces the development of British Columbia’s controversial Bill 41, which empowers that province’s Ministry of Health to restrict the issuance of billing numbers entitling physicians to seek payment from the provincial medical services plan. The bill and its predecessors have been the subjects of two court chal-lenges by the medical profession, and the legal battles continue. The bill has also taken on a role in the evolving interpretation of Canada’s new Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Meanwhile, the policy appears to be dowing the rate of growth in phy-sician supply in the province, but its impact on the real target--medical care costs-is still uncertain. Canadians enjoy virtually universal access to medical care: without fear of its costs. This has not always been so. Canada instituted national health insurance in two stages, first for hospital care in the late 1950s, then for medical care with the passage of the federal Medical Care Act of 1966. By 197 1 all provinces had in place both medical and hospital plans entitling them to federal transfer pay-ments that averaged about 50 percent of costs incurred. Eligibility for this fiscal transfer was incumbent upon the terms and conditions embodied in the provincial plans. In particular, these plans had to satisfy conditions of comprehensiveness, portability, universality, and public administration (LeClair 1975; Taylor 1986). More recently, the Canada Health Act was introduced with the support of all federal parties, reaffirming the Canadian commitment to universality of access under uniform terms and conditions. Under the terms of that act, federal funds
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".