MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905622848 · doi:10.5020/18061230.2018.8802

Health system reforms in mature welfare states: tales from the north

2018· article· en· W2905622848 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jean‐Louis Denis, Susan Usher, Johanne Préval, Élizabeth Côté-Boileau

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Brasileira em Promoção da saúde · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalÉcole Nationale d'Administration PubliqueUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningCorporate governanceWelfare reformDemocracyGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceHealthcare systemScale (ratio)Welfare stateState (computer science)WelfareHealth policyPublic administrationEconomic growthPublic relationsSociologyHealth careEconomicsPoliticsManagementLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This article has the objective show an essay on emerging themes in health system reforms, based on experience in Canada. Data synthesis: Reforms are the privileged mode of social change used by modern democratic societies. Persistent dysfunction and failure to adapt to emerging health needs and priorities within health systems in Canada provide a strong policy rationale to search for alternative strategies that might produce much-needed reforms. Three persistent challenges and opportunities for reform in Canadian health systems are discussed: the design of effective governance arrangements, the large-scale development and implementation of improvement and transformative capacities, and the leadership and engagement of the medical profession in working toward broad system goals. In exploring these challenges, we identify tensions that seem relevant to better understanding health system reform in mature welfare states. Conclusion: Addressing these tensions will require both a reinforcement of state and government capacities and stronger capacities at all levels of the health system to design and support change.

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 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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0210.028
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Brasileira em Promoção da saúdeSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207