fraserinstitute.org FRASER RESEARCH BULLETIN 1 by Milagros Palacios, Bacchus Barua, and Feixue Ren
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadians often misunderstand the true cost of our public health care system. This oc-curs partly because Canadians do not incur direct expenses for their use of health care, and partly because Canadians cannot readily deter-mine the value of their contribution to public health care insurance. In 2015, the estimated average payment for public health care insurance ranges from $3,789 to $12,055 for six common Canadian family types, depending on the type of family. For the average Canadian family, between 2005 and 2015, the cost of public health care insurance increased 1.6 times faster than aver-age income, 1.3 times as fast as the cost of shel-ter, and 2.7 times as fast as food. The 10 % of Canadian families with the low-est incomes will pay an average of about $477 for public health care insurance in 2015. The 10 % of Canadian families who earn an aver-age income of $59,666 will pay an average of $5,684 for public health care insurance and the families among the top 10 % of income earners in Canada will pay $37,180.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.632 | 0.495 |
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".