Evolving Professional Regulation: Keeping up with Health System Evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we reflected on the notion that an evolving healthcare system requires evolving professional regulation to keep pace with system growth and change. The importance of interprofessional and patient-centred care for Ontario's healthcare system is clear. However, the profession specificity of the system is strongly embedded through Ontario's institutional and legislative structures. The result is an evolving system of care with the system of health professional regulation being somewhat left behind. Health professional regulators now have a challenge to "un-silo" regulation in a healthcare system that is evolving toward "un-siloed" care. Regulatory structures that govern single professions in a system that requires collective and additive competence is thus potentially problematic and may lead to attribution of blame to individuals where improvement is required at the level of the team. The shift in culture needed for interprofessional regulation challenges both how providers see themselves in the healthcare system, and the very foundations of professional autonomy.
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 | 0.060 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".