MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045382054 · doi:10.1177/0840470420936709

Innovation in the Canadian health system

2020· article· en· W3045382054 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tom Noseworthy

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIngenuityExpansiveBusinessPublic relationsPolitical scienceEconomicsNeoclassical economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The essence of human ingenuity is creation and novel ideas that result in collective and desired impact. Indeed, innovation is foundational to life in a changing world. In no situation today is this more relevant than in health systems, whether they be challenged to maintain population health, threatened by impending disasters, or expected to respond to the ever-expansive demand and inexorable course of those with chronic diseases. This article discusses health system innovation and its trajectory. It focuses on clinical innovation as a means of achieving high-level performance within a learning health system model. Examples of innovation in Canada are used to illustrate successful approaches worthy of broader consideration and pan-Canadian attention.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.569
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.048 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207