Turning the Titanic: physicians as both leaders and managers in healthcare reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Physicians are instrumental in healthcare reform and their capacity to employ both leadership and management skills can affect change at all levels. This paper aims to present the challenges and opportunities for physicians in influencing system change and discuss how the two different but complementary skill sets may enable them to contribute to transformation of healthcare. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This is a conceptual paper and represents the viewpoints of both authors while incorporating current evidence through the literature. FINDINGS: Healthcare reform is important and underway in many Canadian provinces, yet it is difficult to achieve change. Leadership and management skills differ although these differences are often subtle in language. Physicians both lead and manage in the healthcare system; their capacity to do both is an advantage for healthcare reform. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This paper represents the opinions of both authors and is considered original as a conceptual paper.
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 | 0.025 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".