MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132902080

What's in, what's out Stakeholders': views on the boundaries of Medicare

2006· dissertation· W7132902080 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brenda Jean Gamble

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2006
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)StakeholderHealth careHealth policyPublic policyHealth care reformPublic healthProcess (computing)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there was consensus that the system should continue to be needs based but needed reform, the concept of path dependency explains why reform remains stalled. It was found that the ideas of the policy elites are "stuck" in what has been created. The ideas and interests supported the existing institutional framework that privileges the public funding of medically necessary hospital services and physician services. Policy decisions that have been made at an earlier time have limited the choices and influenced the ideas of the policy elites on what should be funded under Medicare. The sustainability of the Canadian model of health care known as Medicare is the subject of intense public debate and has focused on updating the determination of what services should be publicly funded. Provincial/territorial health insurance plans must fully cover all medically necessary hospital and/or physician services. Even though there have been numerous reports over the last few decades identifying similar themes, reform has been stalled. The objective of this thesis was to assist in the policy process by ascertaining the views of policy elites from key stakeholder groups across Canada on what should be "in" and "out" of the publicly funded system. Using a non-experimental, cross-sectional design, a self-administered questionnaire (available in both French and English) was distributed between January and April, 2002, to policy elites involved in health policy discussions, either as health providers (doctors, nurses, pharmacists, home care providers, hospital/health authorities) or as business. The results are based on 2,523 responses. The ability of government to "buy real change" will largely depend upon its ability to mediate the scope of conflict within the existing institutional framework. Even incremental changes could prove contentious, as evidenced by the views on funding insured hospital services regardless of the site of delivery. A shift to a more holistic approach that would include an expanded funding role for government could be even more contentious, as the path of the medical model is so solidly established in governmental regulations and funding frameworks. Successful reform will need to address, rather than assume, a broader view of health.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0260.023
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.425
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 designQualitative
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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