MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2101897840 · doi:10.12927/hcpap.2009.20774

Role of Educational Institutions in Identifying and Responding to Emerging Health Human Resources Needs

2009· article· en· W2101897840 on OpenAlexaffvenue
John-Paul Tzountzouris, John Gilbert

Bibliographic record

VenueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsMichener Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessKnowledge managementPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The healthcare system continues to evolve, requiring innovation to promote patient-centred, fiscally responsible healthcare delivery. This evolution includes changes to the skills and competencies required of the health human resources (HHR), both regulated and unregulated, who are central supports to healthcare delivery. This has become a priority agenda item at the international, national, provincial, regional and local levels. This paper describes the system factors that drive the emergence of HHR skill and competency needs, and explores the roles of various institutions in the identification of and response to HHR needs. Educational institutions play an important role in responding to emerging HHR needs. Their actual response to HHR skill and competency needs will ultimately depend on the risk posed to the organizations of either addressing, or not addressing, these needs. These decisions are complex and are balanced against strategic, operational and educational risks, benefits and realities within each given educational institution. Educational institutions - through their linkages with the workplace, industry, professional organizations and government - have a unique view and understanding of many facets of the complexity of HHR planning. This paper proposes that educational institutions play a pivotal role as levers in a more coordinated response to emerging HHR needs and, as such, should be intimately involved in comprehensive HHR planning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy→Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→