Revitalisation, Rigour and Relevance: The Citizen-Client and Planning in the Health Services.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whereas, in many OECD countries strategic planning in health care has been in evidence since the 1970s, in Ireland the emergence of strategic management processes in health care planning didn’t occur until the 1990s.\nThis paper reports on part of a comparative study of health services planning in Ireland and in Canada. How can the strategic management of the Irish health services in the form of service planning be implemented? The focus of this paper is the identification of two key stumbling blocks to success in this endeavour. These include the limitations of the control mechanism, the legislation, underpinning service planning and the lack of recognition of the complexity of the healthcare environment and the stakeholders within it, in attempting to introduce service planning as a means of strategic management and change. The Irish research is shadowed by a case study in Canada. This paper reports on the Canadian experience of public participation in planning, to align goals and targets with identified health needs in the population. In comparison to the Irish context, the Canadian planning system takes a two pronged approach; a population health planning approach at the corporate strategic level and multiple stakeholder involvement which is protected by legislation, feeding into this system on an annual basis.
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 | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| 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".