MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2913067327 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxy159

Alternate funding plans have made their mark on academic departments of paediatrics in Canada

2019· review· en· W2913067327 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Robert H. A. Haslam

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersOntario Medical Association
KeywordsMandateSick childPlan (archaeology)Service (business)MedicineFamily medicinePediatricsPolitical scienceBusinessGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An Alternate Funding Plan (AFP) was introduced at the Hospital for Sick Children in 1990 as the fee-for-service model was incapable of meeting the academic mandate of the Department of Pediatrics. The plan was challenged by some members of the Ontario Medical Association and community paediatricians as inefficient, too costly, and possibly a challenge to the fee-for-service system. At present, 28 years later, there are nine productive Department of Pediatrics AFPs across Canada. The current state of the AFPs and possible future direction of the program are discussed.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.220 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainIncentives
GenreReview

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
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→