Le Project Clinique du Ministère de la Santé et des services sociaux du Québec sous la loupe du cadre logique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le Québec a fait du Projet (Clinique) le pivot de son système de santé. Si sur le plan stratégique cela dénote une certaine audace, sur le terrain le Projet Clinique tarde à s¹implanter. Bien que le management de projet soit une approche de gestion privilégiée par le Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec, les documents stratégiques cadrant le Projet Clinique ne reposent pas sur une méthode largement répandue en management de projet, celle du cadre logique. Dans ce working paper, nous soumettons le Projet Clinique à la méthode du cadre logique de sorte à faire ressortir certains défis, risques et enjeux. Quebec has made the (Clinical) Project the hub of its health system. While this may indicate a certain amount of daring in terms of strategic planning, the implementation of the Clinical Project is slow. Even though project management is a managerial approach favoured by the Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec (ministry of health and social services), the strategic framework documents for Clinical Projects are not based upon a widely-used management method, namely, the logical framework. In the present working paper, we will use the logical framework method on the Clinical Project in order to bring out certain challenges, risks and issues.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".