MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196313383 · doi:10.1177/08404704211033002

The relevance of the LEADS framework during the COVID-19 pandemic

2021· article· en· W3196313383 on OpenAlexaffabout
Graham Dickson, Deanne Taylor, Elizabeth Hartney, Bill Tholl, Kelly Grimes, Ming‐Ka Chan, John Van Aerde, Tanya Horsley, Ellen Melis

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsDucks Unlimited CanadaRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaCanadian Paediatric SocietyCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyUniversity of ManitobaInterior HealthCanadian Thoracic SocietyRoyal Roads University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFutures studiesContext (archaeology)Relevance (law)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicHindsight biasHealth careAdaptation (eye)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakTracking (education)PsychologyKnowledge managementPublic relationsPolitical scienceMedicineComputer scienceCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligenceHistoryVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

COVID-19 has created a unique context for the practice of leadership in healthcare. Given the significant use of the LEADS in a Caring Environment capabilities framework (LEADS) in Canada's health system, it is important to document the relevancy of LEADS. The authors reviewed literature, conducted research, and reflected on their own experience to identify leadership practices during the pandemic and related them to LEADS. Findings are presented in three sections: Hindsight (before), Insight (during), and Foresight (post). We profile the issue of improving long-term Care to provide an example of how LEADS can be applied in crisis times. Our analysis suggests that while LEADS appears to specify the leadership capabilities needed, it requires adaptation to context. The vision Canada has for healthcare will dictate how LEADS will be used as a guide to leadership practice in the current context or to shape a bolder vision of healthcare's future.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.335 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207