Accountability by Design: Moving Primary Care Reform Ahead in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health-care reform is perennially popular in Alberta, but reality doesn’t match the rhetoric. Government has invested more than $700 million in Primary Care Networks — with little beyond anecdotal evidence of the value achieved with this investment. As the province redirects primary care to Family Care Clinics, the authors assert that simply tinkering with one part of the system is not the answer: health care must change on a system-wide basis. Drawing on the experiences of frontline staff and a rich body of literature, the authors present their vision for integrated team-based primary care, designed to be accountable to meet the needs of populations. This will require governance that makes primary care the hub of the system, and brings together government and health-services leadership to support the integration of primary and specialty care. There are shared accountabilities for achieving primary care that exhibits the attributes of high performing primary care systems, and these exist at multiple levels, from individuals seeking primary care, up to and including government. The authors make these accountabilities explicit, and outline strategies to secure their achievement that include system redesign, service delivery redesign and payment reform. All of this demands whole-system reform focused on primary care, and it won’t be easy. There are plenty of vested interests at stake, and a truly transformative vision requires buy-in at every level. However, Alberta’s rapidly growing and aging population makes it more urgent than ever to realize such a vision. This paper offers guidelines to spark the fresh thinking required.
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 | 0.041 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| 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".