Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyzes the various questions that arise within an administration when it comes time to transpose the recommendations of a report, such as the Clair Commission Report, to the reality of managing Quebec's health and social services system. The first part of the article briefly describes the process of consultation and how the report was received in January 2001. The Commission's original method of operating and the considerable media attention generated an impetus to appropriate its work and recommendations by the health system's actors, thus helping to raise expectations about future changes. The second part of the article examines the difficulties associated with the implementation of a key recommendation, the family medicine groups. The report emphasizes in particular the major objectives for restructuring primary care, but leaves it to the political and administrative authorities to determine the methods of implementation. The scope of the required changes and the time needed to implement solutions, which were drawn from experiences developed on a small scale, on a system-wide basis are underestimated, by both the political authorities and the population. The economic situation, structural changes, respect for local dynamics and the time needed are all factors which will influence the capacity to implement the recommendations. Implementation is made even more complex by the difficulty in reconciling administrative and political constraints.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".