An Intersectoral Response to Children with Complex Health Care Needs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to stimulate debate on how to define and enact public responsibility to children with complex health care needs and their families. National and provincial policies define accountability at a macro level and are not intended to be prescriptive at the micro level. Indeed, principals, teachers and service providers would be critical of the involvement of policy makers in micro-management. Yet, decision-makers focus on the shortcomings of existing policy and not on the shortcomings of management. For example, the Children and Youth Home Care Network has called for governments at all levels to assign higher priority to developing coherent policies for children with special needs and families, particularly in the home and community. Spalding and colleagues reported that service integration and coordination would not improve until there are fundamental changes at the broader system level… . . There is no urgent need for policy to ‘catch up' with reality. Rather there is a need for principals, teachers and service providers to develop programs that support policies. This paper details a case study of an evidence-based program that provides the critical link between the policy and good practice. This program involves Community Care Access Centres, schools and Saint Elizabeth Health Care, a complex-care nursing provider. The case study illustrates how public responsibility has been successfully enacted at a local level within existing policies for children with complex health care needs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".