[The process of evaluation and improvement of medical practice in Quebec].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Quebec, the evaluation of health care providers' practices is organized for each professional group. It is an official part of the health care regulation policy and is defined by legal texts. Evaluation of medical practices is controlled by physicians through their professional order and consultative medical councils in hospitals. The role of the Collège des Médecins du Québec is to warrant the quality of medical acts. The College watches over the quality of the physician's initial education using a process of agreement for all training departments and for the medical school curriculum. Young graduates must pass the College's examination before being licensed to practice. The College watches over improvements in professional practices via inspections of individual practices and hospitals and continuous education programs. There are three levels of physician supervision: screening for poor practices, inspection, and in-depth investigation. In hospitals, a consultative medical council is in charge of assuring quality medial practice. Mortality and morbidity conferences, claims analysis, audits with explicit evaluation criteria and indicator monitoring are the basic tools used for assessing the quality of medical practice. The Quebec experience demonstrating how a medical profession can organize a full system for evaluating medical practice can be a model for other countries.
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 | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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".