MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reinvigorating publicly funded medicare in Ontario: new public policy and public administration techniques

2006· article· en· W2015047395 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
W. Michael Fenn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompromisePolitical sciencePublic administrationDiligenceGovernment (linguistics)Welfare economicsHumanitiesEconomicsPsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: In the increasingly complex and “horizontal” environment of Canadian governmental decision‐making, the ability of governments to advance a major new policy initiative can be compromised or impeded by the often cumbersome systems evolved to ensure both due diligence and a comprehensive approach. In Ontario, the urgent and multi‐faceted health care reform agenda has been implemented using a new set of policy‐development and program‐implementation techniques. This paper summarizes those reforms. In doing so, it outlines the degree to which the reform agenda has been implemented using techniques and processes that have been grafted onto or even short circuited existing decision‐making systems. The paper also draws conclusions about the potential utility of the Ontario experience both for health care reform and for developing new mechanisms to implement challenging, time‐limited reform agendas within parliamentary systems of government with politically neutral civil services. Sommaire: Dans le contexte de plus en plus complexe et “horizontal” de la prise de décisions gouvernementale au Canada, l'aptitude des gouvernements à promouvoir une nouvelle initiative politique majeure peut être compromise ou entravée par la lourdeur des systèmes élaborés pour assurer une diligence raisonnable et une approche exhaustive. En Ontario, le programme de réforme des soins de santé, urgent et polyvalent, a été mis en œuvre grâce à un nouvel ensemble de techniques d‘élaboration de politiques et de mise en œuvre de programmes. Le présent article résume ces réformes. Ce faisant, il souligne comment le programme de réforme a été mis en œuvre grâce à des techniques et processus qui ont été greffés, ou qui ont même court‐circuité les systèmes de prise de décisions existants. L'article tire aussi des conclusions sur l'utilité possible de l'expérience de l'Ontario en ce qui concerne la réforme des soins de santé mais aussi la mise au point de nouveaux mécanismes pour exécuter des programmes de réforme difficiles, à délai déterminé, au sein de systèmes parlementaires de gouvernement avec des fonctions civiles politiquement neutres.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.211 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207