A critical policy analysis of an emerging agenda for home care in one Canadian province
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amidst projections of the increased care demands and expectations for home care, policy in this area demands urgent attention. Home care is inherently complex as it challenges us to deliberate fundamental issues of responsibility for care, and the limits of care for people in their most immediate contexts and needs. This research takes the form of a critical policy analysis of the interaction of the context, process and content of policy proposals in home care in a regional health system in one Canadian province. The method of study includes thematic and comparative analyses of perspectives derived from policy documents, and interviews with policy actors (decision-makers, healthcare providers, public advocates) regarding their perspectives of policy problems and processes. The content and process of policy in home care interact in important ways with political, economic, social and historical contexts. This critical analysis revealed that the emerging policy agenda in regional home care is one of medicalisation, which stands in contrast to the principles of primary health care, and potentially leads to further marginalisation of the most vulnerable. This contrast is characterised by tensions between the fundamental values of equity and efficiency, choice and universality, and public vis-à-vis individual responsibility for the provision of care.
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 | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".