The Organizational Support Necessary for Integrative Health Care (IHC): A Clinic for Artists in a Hospital Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In 1994, a grassroots group of Canadian artists from diverse disciplines met to investigate the possibility of creating a specialized health-care facility for professional creative artists and performers. The project grew into an outpatient clinic serving professional artists, in a large urban teaching hospital in Canada. This article focuses on the financial limitations of creating and sustaining such an integrative health care (IHC) clinic for artists. Methods: Qualitative in-depth interviews and focus groups were used to gather information about IHC at the clinic. Results: The findings describe how the expense of implementing IHC directly affected the overall sustainability of the clinic, including such aspects as existing subsidy programs, fundraising, and the integration and scheduling of contract practitioners. Strategies for sustainability included using aspects of business and insurance models to inform the current management of clinic funds. Conclusion: An IHC clinic needs financial resources, and the rationale for its development needs to be made explicit to all stakeholders. Its success will ultimately depend upon the support and commitment of all staff involved.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".