Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regionalization is arguably the most significant health reform in Canada since medicare. Although a majority of provinces continue to have regionalized systems in Canada, the policy is more contested today than it was a decade ago. Since Ontario's implementation of local health integration networks (LHINs) in 2006 and Alberta's elimination of regional health authorities (RHAs) in favour of Alberta Health Services in 2008, Canada has had differing approaches to regionalization. However, due to the centralization of physician budgets in provincial health ministries, primary care has not been integrated into any regionalization model in Canada. This factor has severely constrained the performance of RHAs and their ability to meet their respective legislative mandates. Moreover, the lack of research on regionalization has meant that provincial governments are working from an extremely limited evidence base on which to make critical decisions on the structuring of health systems in Canada.
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 | 0.042 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".