New Approaches of Organizing Care and Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quebec's health network has undertaken large-scale organizational changes to ensure the continuity, accessibility, and quality of health care and services for the population. This article describes the optimal approach for making changes to the organization of care and work for patients, health care workers, and organizations. This participative action research was carried out by means of interviews and document analysis. One hundred participants were involved, describing a total of 34 projects for significant organizational change. Results include an optimal approach broken down into 4 phases, each of which includes steps, facilitating factors, and potential difficulties. The phases of this approach are: (1) sharing the vision, mission, and values of the organization and identifying the purpose and need underlying the change; (2) building alliances and validating the involvement of the various players; (3) conceptualizing and planning the project; and (4) implementing changes and continuing evaluation. It is possible to rise to the challenge of finding new approaches to organize care and work by giving way to participation, mobilization, and innovation.
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 | 0.047 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.121 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".