MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7106814756 · doi:10.1080/13876988.2025.2585104

Worse than Failure: Near Misses and the Regulation of Doctors’ Payments in Australian and Canadian Medicare

2025· article· en· W7106814756 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Policy Analysis Research and Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNear missPaymentJob loss

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Australia and Canada have very similar Medicare systems but regulate medical payments differently. The article shows that this difference is due to the unintended consequences of the strategies the federal governments adopted when they tried, and failed, to centralize policy during critical junctures for healthcare reform in the 1940s. It thus demonstrates that critical junctures that fail to produce policy change in the short term can still produce significant long-term policy legacies.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0170.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Policy Analysis Research and PracticeSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207