IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATED SERVICES AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL: A VIEW OF 25 YEARS OF INNOVATIONS IN QUEBEC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For 25 years, Quebec has been very innovative in the integration of services. Integrated service models are innovations involving various operational components (Case management, etc.), that can be implemented in various ways: “let it happen, help it happen or make it happen”, and applied to different essential works for change management. Cloutier and collaborators (2015), describe four of such works: 1. A conceptual work, which involves the creation and communication of stable representations, which are helpful in guiding the action of the various actors. 2. A structural work, which consists of the consolidation of the regulatory aspects of the system, that is, the redistribution of formal action capacities of actors involved in the intended change. 3. An operational work, which involves the creation of conditions such that the actors who are targeted by the innovation actually experiment new ways of doing things. 4. A relational work, which involves the accompanying of various actors with diverse roles and intentions. This presentation summarizes the evolution of this movement of integration of services from the early 1990s until today through an analysis of the speech of 130 key witnesses of these transformations. Though we observe a strong conceptual continuity between successive reforms, it is clear that the movement seems to be moving on a conceptual standardization of the integration of services. Is the integration of services project inherently technocratic? Given the Quebec experience, it seems that yes, although this fact is less the result of conceptual models as of their empirical implementation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".