Comparing Health Professional Work Orientation in French and Canadian Hospitals: Structural Influence of Patients in Open and Closed Units
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper we present comparative qualitative data on the influence of patients on the relationship between health professionals and hospitals in France and Canada. We elaborate specifically on a typology that depicts the structural influence of patients in terms of open and closed communities. Our analysis reveals some key differences between the open and closed communities across the two countries. Health professionals in open communities in France were able to establish a stronger relationship with patients than those in Canada. Professionals in France described a weaker connection with their colleagues than in Canada, and this may be one of the triggers of stress, burnout and high turnover. There were more similarities among closed communities in Canada and France. Conceptualizing the structural influence of patients in terms of open and closed community ideal types is a useful heuristic device that moves the implicit and explicit influence of patients to the foreground of the analysis of the relations between health professions and organizations.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it