A system dynamics approach to jurisdictional conflict between a major and a minor healthcare profession
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this research was to evaluate strategies that a minor profession might successfully undertake to gain market share held by a dominant player when a jurisdiction is contested. A case study approach positing Medicine as the dominant (major) profession and chiropractic as the competitor (minor profession) was used in combination with System Dynamics modelling. Informed by theory of inter‐professional competition, two strategies were hypothesized to aid a minor profession in gaining or securing market share. The first was an increase in abstract knowledge and the second was an increase in professional association membership. In addition, it was hypothesized that an increase in supply of the dominant profession would adversely affect the minor profession's bid for jurisdictional control, as would pressure on the major profession from external sources such as health management. It was concluded that for the relationships explored, simulation results favoured Medicine's monopoly power. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it