The Health Council of Canada Health Innovation Award Patient and Practitioner Accountability for a Sustainable Health Care System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By the end of 2009, Canadian health care expenditures will reach $5542 per capita; yet, according to the World Health Organization, better health outcomes such as increased life expectancy eventually plateau and, for industrialized nations, life expectancy levels off when health spending per capita exceeds $1700. 1,2 If life expectancy is the benchmark, then increased spending will not make a significant difference to Canada’s goal of having effective, efficient, and fiscally-responsible health care for future generations; we must consider other solutions. One approach to improving the health care system is to better define the roles and responsibilities of two critical groups, patients and physicians. 3 First, to empower patients to better self-assess their need for medical services and second, to hold physicians and other practitioners more accountable for the effectiveness of their medical interventions. Patient Empowerment We believe meaningful reform entails patients having stronger connections to the system designed to serve them, as well as being able to take more responsibility for their own health. 4
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 | 0.020 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.012 |
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".