MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2256684037

Financing, Providing and Monitoring the Health Care System through Public-Private Partnerships in Quebec: A Serious Option to Consider or a Pact with the Devil

2004· article· en· W2256684037 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hachimi Sanni Yaya

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic sectorBureaucracyPrivate sectorContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)BusinessPublic administrationNew public managementArgument (complex analysis)Order (exchange)FinanceEconomicsPolitical sciencePoliticsEconomic growthLawEconomy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For years, public-private partnerships (P3s) have been seen as a key element of New Public Management (NPM) and of the debates surrounding the redefinition of the role of the State. They have recently gained prominence as a term used to describe a business relationship between government organizations and private enterprises which put together their resources in order to achieve certain goals or sets of goals. In the actual context of public financial crises and national debt all over the world, governments are being forced to reallocate scarce resources for the utmost effectiveness. In order to do so, they are trying to find a better way of managing the public sector. According to many authors, classical Keynesian approaches based on state intervention are no longer effective, if only with respect to difficulties faced by the public sector. New partnerships are needed. A common argument in favour of these partnerships is that operations and services, traditionally the responsibility of government, can be run more efficiently, in a more entrepreneurial fashion, and with a less cumbersome bureaucracy and waste, by delegating certain public services to private enterprises. But the P3 model of providing health care infrastructure and services raises many fears in the health sector. Given a stubborn rhetoric and the hazardous slipping of public services towards radical privatization as practiced in the United States, certain authors claim that, you can't sup with the devil, even with a long spoon. According to others, great mirages and irrefragable alternatives, P3s are still the subject of sharp debates and criticism with ideological flavour and dogmatic connotations. In this paper, we propose to go beyond these paradigmatic considerations in order to examine public-private partnerships for what they truly are, with their strengths and their weaknesses. As P3s are not carried out without obstacles, as they can constitute a lifesaver for a public sector facing difficulties, assuming that certain guarantees regarding the health care are obtained and that conditions pertaining to their design, their implementation and their management are filled.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicHealthcare Systems and Practices→French-language works237,207→