The Influence of Social Context on Partnerships in Canadian Health Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partnerships, collaboration, joined‐up government; these terms have become common elements of global health and social policy discourse. The terms may be pervasive but there remain significant challenges to collaborative ways of working. We argue that some of these challenges arise from a failure to account explicitly for the influence of social context. Between 1999 and 2001 we conducted a comparative case study of partnerships in Canadian health systems in which we examined specifically the roles of social context and gender. Social structures directly linked to formalized health systems are embedded in social institutions based on patriarchal and bureaucratic practices that do not traditionally support the relational practices required for the development of partnerships. While individuals within such organizations may have the knowledge, skills and commitment to collaborate, in such an environment, tremendous resource expenditures are required to achieve and maintain collaborative advantage.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".