MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000765162 · doi:10.1111/1467-9566.00269

Everyday experiences of implicit rationing: comparing the voices of nurses in California and British Columbia

2001· article· en· W2000765162 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ivy Lynn Bourgeault, Pat Armstrong, Hugh Armstrong, Jacqueline Choiniere, Joel Lexchin, Eric Mykhalovskiy, Suzanne Peters, Jerry P. White

Bibliographic record

VenueSociology of Health & Illness · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCarleton UniversityYork UniversityWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRationingStaffingHealth carePoliticsManaged careNursingHealth care rationingBusinessPublic relationsPsychologyPolitical scienceMedicineEconomicsEconomic growthLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Managed Care in the U.S. is one of the more controversial strategies to implicitly ration health care. It has also been creeping into Canada where care is similarly being managed albeit in a different socio‐political environment. Based on nine group interviews with 35 RNs in California and 10 group interviews with 39 RNs in British Columbia, we find that the price to be paid for the promise of cheaper, more efficient health care through managerial strategies is borne largely by nurses and other health care providers. The data reveal that nurses in British Columbia and California share similar experiences with how the amount of care is rationed at the bedside – through care pathways, early discharge policies and reduced staffing – while the rationing of access to care differs because of the socio‐political contexts of their respective health care systems. In both cases, the implicit rationing of care through managerial strategies fails to deliver on its promises.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociology of Health & IllnessSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207