MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102915332 · doi:10.12927/hcpap..17350

Developing a Home Care System by Design

2000· letter· en· W2102915332 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Karen Parent, Malcolm Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy · 2000
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careEquity (law)Public healthPopulation healthPublic policyLibrary scienceHealth policySociologyPolitical scienceMedicineManagementNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing and implementing a national approach to home care has been an ongoing and sometimes controversial point of debate between the provinces and the federal government for a few years. We agree that Canada is ready for such a model, but the policy instruments imbedded in the model must be carefully considered in our commentary we expand on several points made by the lead paper, but focus specifically on the proposed model with respect to the suggested policy instrument recommended for financing the model and some of the key issues surrounding the delivery of home care. It is imperative from our perspective that the current political environment be fully understood to appreciate the context in which the model would be introduced. We argue t ha t understanding the complexities of home care is one thing, resolution of the issues in the model proposed is another. Although the federal government has agreed that there will be more dollars infused through the Canada Health and Social Transfer, the suggested policy instrument recommended for financing the model does not assure that home care programs will receive the funding that is required when other important and competing interests are considered (e.g., cancer treatment and waiting lists). We are at a point where there is incredible potential to reconfigure the health system such that home and community-based care can play a much greater role, but how do we fully realize that potential? The first step is to take the opportunity afforded by the huge surplus of the federal government and to invest heavily in developing home care -to create a system by design. That means thinking about funding directed to home care as an investment, and not as a cost. More funding, however, has limited utility without a sense of where the funding should be targeted, and for what purpose. We agree in principle that a national approach is required to advance and support home care to meet the needs of the future with the correct policy instruments. What happens in the next couple of years will shape that long-term model of home care. Whether that be by default or design is contingent on the willingness and commitment of the politicians and policymakers, and the degree to which the Canadian public have a voice that will be heard.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.242 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be HealthySame topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207