MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164677479 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2013.21898

Fire, Aim… Ready? Alberta's Big Bang Approach to Healthcare Disintegration

2010· article· fr· W2164677479 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Cam Donaldson

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careKnowledge translationPolitical sciencePeer reviewEngineering ethicsSociologyPublic relationsEngineeringLawKnowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alberta's abolition in 2008 of its health regions and the creation of Alberta Health Services (AHS) was a bold move, but the reasons for the change remain hazy. The stated goals were to "help make Alberta's … system more effective and efficient" and to "provide equitable access to health services and long-term sustainability." Data show, however, that Alberta's health regions were already performing well on these goals relative to other provinces, and where changes have since occurred, they cannot necessarily be attributed to AHS.

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)0.003
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 score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207