Accountability Agenda Must Include Home and Community Based Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wait times and the wait times agenda are on the Canadian schedule. Although most Canadians support our healthcare system, they are concerned about access. Resolving the wait times agenda might help increase Canadian confidence in the system's ability to provide timely access to care. While the paper by Trypuc, MacLeod and Hudson demonstrates well how quickly governments can mobilize tools and resources to address pressing policy needs, it also reveals the limited and narrow approach taken by governments to the wait times agenda. The Ontario government should recognize that a more integrated and comprehensive approach can significantly advance the wait times agenda and make the system more accountable. Only a broad-based approach will ultimately succeed in reducing wait times and building a sustainable system. A shift in values needs to take place away from the current emphasis on acute care and toward an inclusive vision of home- and community-based care that puts more emphasis on disease management, chronic care and independent living, if there is ever to be any real progress in the battle. Governments will ultimately be held accountable by Canadian healthcare consumers if they fail to make this important shift.
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 | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.051 | 0.063 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".