Challenges of Capacity and Development for Health System Sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To achieve sustainability, remote and rural communities require health service models that are designed in and for these settings and are responsive to local population health needs. This paper draws on a panel discussion at the Rural and Indigenous Health Symposium held in Toronto, ON, on September 21, 2017. Active community participation is an important contributor to success in rural health system transformation, as well as health workforce recruitment and retention. Increasingly, communication technology is contributing to the quality and effectiveness of healthcare in remote rural community settings, particularly by ensuring that specialist expertise is accessible to and supportive of the local providers of care. Recent medical graduates bring life experiences and work expectations to rural primary care that are different from their senior colleagues. Successful recruitment and retention of the rural primary care workforce depend increasingly on offering a "turnkey" clinic work supported by a functioning electronic medical record. Rural health system sustainability occurs most frequently through ongoing collaboration and partnerships, partnerships, partnerships. It is through partnerships with communities, health services and healthcare providers that the Northern Ontario School of Medicine (NOSM) has been successful in producing medical graduates who provide care responsive to population health needs in previously underserved communities of northern Ontario. Sustainable healthcare in remote and rural communities is enhanced by active community participation and clustering these communities in local networks. An important key to success is shifting from hospital-centric to community-centric 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 | 0.065 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
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".