MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The role of medical doctors in healthcare reforms in the NHS in England

2022· book-chapter· en· W4297132408 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jean‐Louis Denis, Sabrina Germain, Catherine Régis, Gianluca Veronesi

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Press eBooks · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeContext (archaeology)PoliticsGovernment (linguistics)Health careThematic analysisPublic administrationPolitical scienceHealthcare systemHealth care reformPublic relationsMedicineSociologyHealth policyQualitative researchHistoryLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Chapter provides a case narrative of the role of medical doctors in healthcare reforms in the England, starting with the creation of the NHS (1948), up until the Coalition government reforms and their aftermath (2010-2020). The focus is on the two main policy actors and their complex relationship over time. As for the Canadian case study, the reform narrative is followed by analysis along three thematic axis: 1) the drivers and shapers of medical politics; 2) the strategies used by medical doctors and governments to deal with evolving context and 3) The implications for medical politics and healthcare reforms.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.326 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicy Press eBooksSame topicHealthcare Systems and ChallengesFrench-language works237,207