Horizontal and Vertical Healthcare Integration: Lessons Learned from the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leatt, Pink and Guerriere provide a very rational argument for moving the Canadian healthcare system towards a more integrated model. They suggest that the current system in Canada is a hodge-podge of disconnected parts. The current system is viewed as providing uncoordinated care, with inadequate use of non-medical practitioners, perverse payment incentives for providers, too much focus on treatment of disease, unacceptable wait times for services and related other problems. The authors provide extensive documentation of vital components of a system they envision for Canada, the rationale for adopting an integrated system of services, and conclude by suggesting strategies for achieving integrated healthcare. Change towards the new system would concentrate initially on primary care, using virtual coordination networks at the local level. Innovative needs-based funding methods would ensure that individuals throughout Canada receive necessary services for keeping them healthy.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".