Amalgamating Provincial Health Authorities: Assessing the Experience of Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reflecting the shift away from regionalized health governance in Canada's provinces, the Nova Scotia government consolidated its nine Distinct Health Authorities into the single Nova Scotia Health Authority as of 1 April 2015.Regionalized health administration had originally been expected to produce economic efficiencies but, after two decades, a fragmented system of health governance was increasingly perceived as inflexible, uneven, and expensive.A more centralized system was presented as a means of reducing administrative costs, promoting scale economies, allowing greater flexibility, and facilitating standardization, which would in turn lead to significant savings.Five years on, however, the expected cost savings have not materialized.While there has been more success in standardization of services, not all attempts at standardization have led to greater efficiency.Evidence for greater flexibility is mixed.Problems with amalgamating health authorities include opportunity costs incurred by thoroughgoing reform, ambiguous and diminished accountability, administrative bottlenecks, decreased responsiveness, and poor working relationships with health care professionals leading to issues of access to health care services.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".