MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Part 2 – primary health care workforce policy intricacies: multidisciplinary team<sup>1</sup> case analysis

2011· article· en· W2149963250 on OpenAlexaff
Margot Félix‐Bortolotti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsNOSM University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforceAgency (philosophy)Multidisciplinary approachWorkforce planningWork (physics)PoliticsHealth carePopulationPublic relationsPrimary careNursingPolitical scienceBusinessMedicineSociologyFamily medicineEngineeringLawSocial scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the usefulness of theoretical framework in the analysis of complex policy issues related to primary health care (PHC) workforce for informed policy decisions and planning. APPROACH: The study links complexity theories with political economy and connects them to theoretical work on structure and agency to guide the analysis of the PHC workforce issues and their related ramifications. This theoretical framework guides as well the literature review. With this approach, it is possible to ascertain and disturb the linear thinking which tends to surround questions or issues related to PHC human resources. CONCLUSION: Workforce changes occur in a multifaceted structure of norms and values as well as within the policies, regulations and traditions, the ruling relations² between professions, and between employers and employees. Similarly, changes in the population characteristics and in the political economy not only affect the demand for care but also have implications for the type of staff that can be hired.

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.593
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical PracticeSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207