MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1918805558 · doi:10.5334/ijic.1140

Mergers and integrated care: the Quebec experience

2013· article· en· W1918805558 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

VenueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsÉcole Nationale d'Administration Publique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessContext (archaeology)Integrated careHealth careIncentiveMergers and acquisitionsService (business)Public relationsHealthcare serviceKnowledge managementMarketingEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomicsComputer scienceFinanceMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a researcher, I have studied the efforts to increase the integration of health and social services in Quebec, as well as the mergers in the Quebec healthcare system. These mergers have often been presented as a necessary transition to break down the silos that compartmentalize the services dispensed by various organisations. A review of the studies about mergers and integrated care projects in the Quebec healthcare system, since its inception, show that mergers cannot facilitate integrated care unless they are desired and represent for all of the actors involved an appropriate way to deal with service organisation problems. Otherwise, mergers impede integrated care by creating increased bureaucratisation and standardisation and by triggering conflicts and mistrust among the staff of the merged organisations. It is then preferable to let local actors select the most appropriate organisational integration model for their specific context and offer them resources and incentives to cooperate.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.392 · 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