MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1431118129 · doi:10.1177/0840470415599115

The crisis of regionalization

2015· review· en· W1431118129 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatus quoPoliticsCorporate governancePolitical scienceState (computer science)Control (management)FeelingIdeal (ethics)Public administrationDevelopment economicsBusinessEconomicsPsychologyFinanceLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently in Canada, there is no consensus concerning the efficacy of regionalization, a reversal of the strong commitment in favour only a decade earlier. Instead, provincial governments are either dismantling regional health authorities in favour of highly centralized structures under the control of ministries of health or actively considering more centralized approaches. There is a general feeling among political leaders that regionalization has failed to achieve its original objectives. However, by not including physicians and primary care within regionalized governance, provincial governments have never given regionalization a real chance. Moreover, given the fact that the status quo prior to regionalization was far from an ideal state and would be almost impossible to return to in any event, some provincial governments should consider implementing a more full-blooded version of regionalization before abandoning the approach.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.314
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.247 · 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