Health System Regionalization in Canada's Provincial and Territorial Health Systems: Do Citizen Governance Boards Represent, Engage, and Empower?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regionalization of the health care system, through the creation of sub-provincial service-delivery regions and governance authorities (i.e., regional health authorities, RHAs), has been a key part of Canadian health reform initiatives of the past two decades. Increased public participation in health care planning and service delivery is one of the explicit goals of regionalization. Based on a reanalysis of data from a 2001 survey of health system governors from 134 RHAs throughout Canada, this study explores the overall demographic composition of the citizen governance boards, as well as their responses to various opinion and attitude questions. To enable consideration of the extent to which these sites may support public deliberation and community development, overall responses are examined, as are responses within two subtypes of governors: system-experienced citizen governors and lay citizen governors--governors with or without previous health-system employment experience, respectively. The findings suggest that attention needs to be paid to these citizen governance boards if they are truly meant to be sites of citizen engagement in health policy and governance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".