MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320425969 · doi:10.1332/174426413x662815

Systems thinking for transformational change in health

2014· article· en· W2320425969 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cameron D. Willis, Allan Best, Barbara Riley, Carol P. Herbert, John Millar, David Howland

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence & Policy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformational leadershipTransformative learningSystems thinkingContext (archaeology)Healthcare systemProcess managementEngineering ethicsSociologyTransformation (genetics)Management scienceKnowledge managementComputer sciencePolitical sciencePublic relationsHealth careBusinessEngineeringArtificial intelligencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Incremental approaches to introducing change in Canada’s health systems have not sufficiently improved the quality of services and outcomes. Further progress requires ‘large system transformation’, considered to be the systematic effort to generate coordinated change across organisations sharing a common vision and goal. This essay draws on ongoing dialogue relating to transformation, and examines transformative efforts in the Saskatchewan health system. We aim to build a shared understanding of systems thinking in the context of transformation, and to outline examples of how systems thinking perspectives, with an emphasis on the role of evidence, may inform strategy for complex change initiatives.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.066
Scholarly communication0.0140.012
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.783
GPT teacher head0.725
Teacher spread0.058 · 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

Citations39
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence & PolicySame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207