MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2156788554 · doi:10.1109/icsmc.2009.5346295

Canada's healthcare sustainability: A holistic perspective on emerging challenges

2009· article· en· W2156788554 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vikraman Baskaran, B Shah, A J Tiessen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityHealth careSoftware deploymentBusinessPerspective (graphical)Conceptual frameworkSustainability organizationsSocial sustainabilityProcess managementRisk analysis (engineering)Knowledge managementComputer scienceEconomic growthEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continued debate on privatization initiatives within the Canadian healthcare system has brought much-needed attention to sustainability issues and the emerging challenges faced by this domain. Predicaments that deal exclusively with public or private health service challenges should not derail healthcare sustainability efforts. Applying an appropriate framework is fundamental for ensuring the success of healthcare sustainability initiatives. Such a framework would not only allow better understanding of sustainability related challenges, but would also pave the way for the deployment of manageable solutions. This paper highlights such challenges and, through the use of a conceptual framework, provides a holistic perspective on how the core components of sustainability can be properly employed in healthcare. The primary objective of a successful healthcare system improvement is not merely to justify the current rate of spending, but to take into account the various aspects of sustainability. The discussion also highlights how sustainability can be leveraged to solve challenges that have a greater consequence, namely, a long-term impact on healthcare.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0120.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.333
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.121 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→