Understanding the emergence and development of medical collaboration across organizational boundaries: A longitudinal case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our goal in this investigation was to help shed light on the very difficult process of collaboration between family physicians and specialists working at different levels of healthcare delivery. More precisely, and grounded on Giddens' structuration theory, our investigation aims to understand how medical collaboration emerges and develops around chronic patients. This was a longitudinal interpretive case study, the "case" being a continuum-of-care for patients suffering from diabetes, put in place in an urban health center in the Canadian province of Quebec. The study shows how the application of rules of signification and of legitimation, combined with domination resources, have supported the emergence of new forms of collaborative practices. Our analysis reveals, however, that new collaborative practices at the administrative level do not necessarily entail greater shared decision-making in patient management and the mobilization of knowledge across boundaries. The study also corroborates the mutual recursive influence of practices and structures. Our study's most important contribution concerns the impact of knowledge dynamics, that is, individual and collective learning, on the development of medical collaboration across levels of care.
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 | 0.019 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".