MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

‘Complexity-compatible’ policy for integrated care? Lessons from the implementation of Ontario's Health Links

2017· article· en· W2780364105 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Agnes Grudniewicz, Tim Tenbensel, Jenna M. Evans, Carolyn Steele Gray, G. Ross Baker, Walter P. Wodchis

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science & Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteCancer Care OntarioUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsComplex adaptive systemFlexibility (engineering)Health careCLARITYCorporate governancePublic relationsSensemakingConsistency (knowledge bases)Health policyKnowledge managementComputer scienceSociologyPolitical scienceEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.117
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.117
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0160.018
Scholarly communication0.0170.009
Open science0.0040.014
Research integrity0.0120.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.571
GPT teacher head0.698
Teacher spread0.127 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSocial Science & MedicineSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207