Shifting traditional healthcare paradoxes—The case for true system transformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although national spending on healthcare has progressed on an upward trend over several decades, issues regarding performance remain. Challenges such as access to specialist care and maternal and infant mortality rates contributed to Canada's recent ranking of ninth among 11 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries for overall health system performance. Although disruptive transformation is required to resolve our chronic performance issues, effective change cannot be realized without addressing the foundational elements of patient-centred care, interprofessional care, and system integration. Inspired by examples of innovative disruption in other jurisdictions and industries, these three concepts are outlined as the core ingredients for healthcare transformation and describe how they currently function in a paradoxical manner-as self-contradictory statements which in reality are not executed to their true meaning. This article illustrates how improvements in health system performance are hinged to the need to rectify and fuse these three mutually inclusive and inseparable concepts.
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 | 0.040 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.098 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".