MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2269017533 · doi:10.1177/0840470415600129

Will LHINs ever become the “eyes and ears” of the Health Minister for local community wisdom?

2015· review· en· W2269017533 on OpenAlexaff
Ted Ball

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsXanadu Quantum Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationPlan (archaeology)Point (geometry)Action planAction (physics)Health planTransformation (genetics)Political sciencePublic relationsPublic administrationLawHealth careManagementEconomicsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This commentary reflects on the intent of the legislation establishing the Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) and comments on the performance gap between the vision for what could have been and the actual performance. A nine-point action plan to restore the LHINs' potential role as a positive force for health system integration and transformation at the local level is provided.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207