Rose-Coloured Glasses: The Discourse on Information Technology in the Romanow Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Here discourse about information technology in Canada’s health sector is examined. After an overview of the emergence of the Canadian Health Information Infrastructure, discourse within the Romanow Report is discussed in relation to three key themes: standardization, empowerment, and time/space compression. While an instrumental view of technology in the health care sector is the predominant discourse articulated in the report, we argue that, by emphasizing technology assessment, the Romanow Report makes room for a more nuanced analysis of technology implementations than is common to government reports. We conclude by suggesting how investigations of information and communication technology in the health sector, such as this, may offer opportunities to raise critical questions about technology and health policy from a communications perspective.
 
 Résumé : Dans cet article, nous effectuons une analyse de discours sur les technologies de l’information dans le secteur de la santé au Canada. Suivant un survol de l’infrastructure de la technologie de l’information sur la santé du Canada, nous passons en revue le discours du rapport Romanow relatif à trois thèmes clés : la standardisation, l’autonomisation et la compression espace-temps. Bien qu’une perspective instrumentale sur la technologie dans le système de soins soit le discours prédominant articulé dans ce rapport, nous soutenons que le rapport Romanow, en mettant l’accent sur la prospective, effectue une analyse plus nuancée des mises en oeuvre technologiques que celles qu’on lit ordinairement dans des rapports gouvernementaux. Nous concluons cet article en proposant que des études comme celle-ci, qui portent sur la technologie de ’information et de la communication dans le secteur de la santé, ont le potentiel, tout en privilégiant une perspective communicationnelle, de soulever des questions critiques sur les politiques en matière de technologie et de santé.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".