MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167490296 · doi:10.1684/mst.2013.0255

Analysis of the healthcare service decentralization process in Côte d’Ivoire

2014· review· fr· W2167490296 on OpenAlexaff
Biessé Diakaridja Soura, Siaka Coulibaly

Bibliographic record

VenueMédecine et Santé Tropicales · 2014
Typereview
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecentralizationDevolution (biology)AutonomyHealth careCote d ivoireProcess (computing)Public administrationService (business)Regional autonomyPoliticsPopulationScope (computer science)Public sectorBusinessPolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomicsSociologyComputer scienceMarketingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The decentralization of healthcare services is becoming increasingly important in strategies of public sector management. This concept is analyzed from various points of view, including legal, economic, political, and sociological. Several typologies have been proposed in the literature to analyze this decentralization process, which can take different forms ranging from simple deconcentration to more elaborate devolution. In some instances, decentralization can be analyzed by the degree of autonomy given to local authorities. This article applies these typologies to analyze the healthcare system decentralization process in Cote d'Ivoire. Special attention is paid to the new forms of community healthcare organizations. These decentralized structures enjoy a kind of autonomy, with characteristics closer to those of devolution. The model might serve as an example for population involvement in defining and managing healthcare problems in Cote d'Ivoire. We end with proposals for the improvement of the process.

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)0.005
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.400 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMédecine et Santé TropicalesSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207