Tarnished Yet Tenacious: Examining the Track Record and Future of Public-Private Partnership Hospitals in Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public—private partnerships (P3s) with the for-profit private sector first emerged in Canada in the mid-1990s and have been steadily growing in popularity ever since. More recently, proliferation since the mid-2000s has been sustained largely through infrastructure projects developed within provincial health sectors. By 2011, P3 hospitals accounted for half to three-quarters of all P3 projects in British Columbia (BC) and Ontario respectively, the Canadian provinces most enthusiastic for P3s (see Partnerships BC n.d.; Infrastructure Ontario n.d.).1 With large hospital re/development in particular, P3s are now the principal way in which these infrastructure projects and their accompanying support services are delivered. While the rise of P3s is a global phenomenon, which is in no way unique to Canada, specificity when evaluating this policy matters. By focusing on Canadian P3 hospitals, we are able to uncover how global neoliberal processes operate at the ground level (in the form of particular P3 projects) and how this unfolds within a specific sector (health care). In so doing it becomes evident that location-and sector-specific conditions shape the implementation of larger neoliberal forces.KeywordsBritish ColumbiaPrivate PartnershipLivelihood ChangeSocial ReproductionPublic Health Care SystemThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it