New Brunswick's E-health Strategy and the Evolution of Regionalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction – The Provincial Health Plan 2008–2012 On April 1, 2008, the Government of New Brunswick announced The Provincial Health Plan 2008–2012,Transforming New Brunswick’s Health-care (Government of New Brunswick 2008). The health plan included an ambitious province-wide reorientation and restructuring of healthcare delivery, governance and funding under the direction of the health ministry. The major focus of the four-year plan was – and remains in its third year – to shift New Brunswick’s healthcare delivery from, in the words of then–Health Minister Michael Murphy, “a systemcentred health system to one that’s patient-centred” (Michael Murphy 2008). The health plan’s 12 major initiatives, which aim at enabling a patient-centred healthcare system, include nine projects directly impacting healthcare delivery and three involving IT, legislative and governance support for reorienting healthcare access and delivery. The plan also announced that four new governance and/or organizational entities would be established (Government of New Brunswick 2008): • Eight Regional Health Authorities (RHAs) would be consolidated into two, initially named RHA A and RHA B (RHA B was subsequently renamed Horizon Health Network), and organized to provide a single, efficient, provincially integrated healthcare system in two administrative divisions. • Delivery of certain RHA non-clinical services would be consolidated under a new, public sector, shared service provider organization – subsequently named FacilicorpNB – to gain efficiencies and significantly reduce the cost of healthcare delivery. • The New Brunswick Health Council would be established to provide a more effective mechanism for citizen involvement in healthcare system planning, monitoring and accountability. • The NB Health Research and Innovation Council would be established to direct, promote and support health research in New Brunswick.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".