Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Government imperatives that drive integrated care are challenging corporate executive leadership. Conspicuous by its absence in both government's imperatives and the literature, is any reference to corporate executive leadership in transitioning a hierarchically oriented health system to a laterally integrated health system referred to, in this paper, as an integrated health system. This lack of reference to executive leadership involvement conveys either significant consequences or opportunities for corporate healthcare executives. The purpose of this qualitative, multi-case study is to explore corporate executive leadership in transitioning a hierarchically oriented health system to an integrated health system. Design/methodology/approach Between December 2017 and February 2018, a qualitative methodology and multi-case study design facilitated one hour telephone interviews with 11 presidents and four senior vice presidents. Critical case sampling was used to select the study sample from a target population of 246 corporate healthcare executives representing Ontario's major acute healthcare organizations/systems. Findings Corporate healthcare executives possess the requisite skills and knowledge to transition a hierarchically oriented to a laterally integrated the health system but are constrained by an undefined partnership role with government and fear of government changes. Originality/value This paper provides corporate executive leaders with a systematic leadership approach to organizational readiness, in transitioning to an integrated health system. Features and outcomes of the approach are illustrated.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".