Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty years ago, many of Canada's provinces began to introduce regional health authorities to address problems with their health care systems. With this action, the provinces sought to achieve advances in community decision-making, the integration of health services, and the provision of care in the home and community. The authorities were also to help restrict health care costs. An assessment of the authorities indicates, however, that over the past two decades they have been unable to meet their objectives. Community representatives continue to play little role in determining the appropriate health services for their regions. Gains have been made towards integrating health services, but the plan for a near seamless set of health services has not been realized. Funding for health services remains focused on hospital and physician care, and health care expenditures have until very recently been little affected by regional authorities. This disappointing performance has caused some provinces to abandon their regional authorities, but this article argues that the provision of greater autonomy and a better public appreciation of their role and potential may lead to more successful regional authorities. Accordingly, the objective of this article is to reveal the shortcomings of regional health authorities in Canada while at the same time arguing that changes can be made to increase the chances of more workable authorities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".