MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004840437 · doi:10.1258/095148406777888080

Integrated service networks: the Quebec case

2006· review· en· W2004840437 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marie‐Josée Fleury

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Services Management Research · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersInstitut National de Santé Publique du Québec
KeywordsTypologyIntegrated careContext (archaeology)Service (business)Health careHealth servicesProcess managementKnowledge managementBusinessManagement scienceSociologyMarketingComputer scienceEngineeringEconomic growthEconomicsPopulationGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the current context of health-care reform, integrated service networks are presented as main solutions to enhance efficiency. During the past few years, there has been an abundance of literature focusing on integration and the underlying implementation issues. However, the concept of integrated service networks remains fluid, and there are few typologies on health-care inter-organizational relations. The Quebec health-care system offers fertile ground for furthering our understanding of this concept because of its public system of funding, its integration of health and social missions, and the present reform's state of development. On the basis of a review of the literature and empirical studies, this article intends to clarify the concept of integrated service networks. A typology of inter-organizational relations and the main parameters for organizing integrated service networks are presented. The article also discusses the effectiveness of integration models.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.592
GPT teacher head0.563
Teacher spread0.029 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations71
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Services Management ResearchSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207