National Quality Council: Healthcare Renewal in Canada: Accelerating Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accelerating Change R ecent Canadian history has been marked by an increasing anxiety about the state of our healthcare system.As our population ages and new demands and demographic pressures are placed on the healthcare system, the Canadian public has been understandably preoccupied with the long-term viability of the system: Will the care I need be accessible in the future?With that in mind, the First Ministers created the Health Council of Canada in late 2003.Comprising 27 councillors from across Canada, the Council has the role of an impartial observer, constructively identifying issues and needs facing Canada's healthcare system, and to monitor progress in renewing Canadian healthcare.Throughout 2004, councillors studied aspects of the healthcare system, and the culmination of that work is contained in our first annual report -Healthcare Renewal in Canada: Accelerating Change -which was released, in Ottawa, on January 27, 2005.Underlying all messages in the report is a theme: speed up the process of change.There are some very encouraging innovations happening in our system -whether it is through the advances in telemedicine or new home-care delivery models -and we want to celebrate and promote those accomplishments.But we must also acknowledge that, unless we make the necessary changes now, we risk jeopardizing that momentum.Acknowledging pockets of success cannot be cause for complacency.We need to challenge ourselves to learn from those successes and broaden innovation.The full document and supplementary material is available at our website www.healthcouncilcanada.ca, and we encourage you to consider the complete piece, but there are aspects of the report that are of particular importance to leaders and decision-makers in the healthcare community, and we would like to highlight some of those aspects of the report.
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 | 0.016 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".