MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7100620899

Background Briefing: The Canadian Health Care System

2014· article· en· W7100620899 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careNegotiationAutonomyMedical prescriptionPublic healthHealth policyHealth insuranceLegislation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health care in Canada has long been a source of national pride. Known as ‘medicare’, the system is publicly financed but privately run, it provides universal coverage and care is free at the point of use. The system is based on five founding principles. Care must be universal, portable, comprehensive, accessible, and publicly administered. But does medicare adhere to these principles? Many think not. Ten Systems and Five Founding Principles: The Development of Medicare Canada’s version of national public health insurance is characterised by local control, doctor autonomy and consumer choice – patients theoretically have a free choice of physician and hospital. (Kraker, 2002). The ten provincial governments are the key providers of health care, having the constitutional responsibility for planning, financing, and evaluating the provision of hospital care, negotiating salaries of health professionals and negotiating fees for physician services. The result is that each provincial insurance plan differs slightly – mostly in how far each extends public insurance coverage beyond medically necessary hospital and physician services (Kraker, 2002). Additional services may include optometric services, dental services, chiropractic services and prescription drug benefits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0170.004
Scholarly communication0.0120.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0140.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→