MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159196693 · doi:10.12927/hcq..16803

Aligning the Stars: Using Systems Thinking to (Re)Design Canadian Healthcare

2004· article· en· W2159196693 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brian Golden, Roger L. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careHealthcare systemSystems thinkingPublic relationsEngineering ethicsBest practiceManagement scienceBusinessPolitical scienceSociologyKnowledge managementEngineeringComputer scienceLawArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has become commonplace to refer to a "Canadian healthcare system," implying some monolithic system of prevention and care, yet failing to acknowledge its various subsystems, some performing well and some not. This article argues that a more nuanced understanding of healthcare systems, based on the principles of Systems Theory, provides a useful lens to understand our current system(s) as well as those that are possible, the principles of design and the levers available to leaders and policymakers as we implement our healthcare strategies for Canada.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations31
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207