Reinvigorating publicly funded medicare in Ontario: new public policy and public administration techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".