MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133891312 · doi:10.1002/hpm.3129

Global health and innovation: A panoramic view on health human resources in the COVID‐19 pandemic context

2021· article· en· W3133891312 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jean‐Louis Denis, Nancy Côté, Charles Fleury, Graeme Currie, Dimitrios Spyridonidis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Health Planning and Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanada Research ChairsFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsWorkforceHuman resourcesScope (computer science)BusinessWork (physics)Corporate governancePandemicHealth policyGlobal healthContext (archaeology)Public relationsCitizen journalismPolitical scienceEconomic growthHealth careCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)EconomicsMedicineGeographyEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While policy-makers in many jurisdictions are paying increasing attention to health workforce issues, human resources remain at best only partially aligned with population health needs. This paper explores the governance of human resources during the pandemic, looking at the Quebec health system as a revelatory case. We identify three issues related to health human resource (HHR) policies: working conditions, recognition at work and scope of practice. We empirically probe these issues based on an analysis of popular media, policy reports and participant observation by the lead authors in various forums and research projects. Using an integrated model of HHR, we identify major vulnerabilities in this domain. Persistent labour shortages, endemic deficiencies in working environments and inequity across occupational categories limit the ability to address critical HHR issues. We propose three ways to eliminate HHR vulnerabilities: reorganize work through participatory initiatives, implement joint policy making to rebalance power across the health workforce, and invest in the development of capacities at all system levels.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.055
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.170
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.354 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations41
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Health Planning and ManagementSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207