MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4297814873 · doi:10.46692/9781447352167.007

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

2022· other· en· W4297814873 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careNursingFamily medicineMedicinePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a better understanding of the historical role played by medical doctors in the NHS healthcare reforms, we need a few preliminary words on the process of law-making to reform the healthcare system in England. Usually, the reformative process is ignited by an inquiry or policy proposal. In the early years of the NHS, the government established Royal Commissions as ad hoc committees (House of Lords, 2007) tasked to lead investigations that triggered reforms. This long and burdensome process later gave way to more targeted inquiries to inform policy changes (for example, the Griffiths Report or NHS Management Inquiry, 1983). The government could also put forward reform strategies and policy proposals in a publicly released White Paper, offering stakeholders the opportunity to provide written or oral responses that are valuable in highlighting any controversial areas. Parliament has, at times, been convened to debate responses to White Papers before the government proceeds with a formal legislative proposal or Bill to be ‘read’ (examined and debated) three times in Parliament (Select Committee on the Constitution, 2017–19). The draft law is then presented either to the House of Commons or the House of Lords (or sometimes both) and, if passed, receives Royal Assent before becoming law. While stakeholders are not invited to interact directly in the House of Lords or the House of Commons, their support or objections are relayed by Lords or members of the House of Commons who act as unofficial spokespersons because their political interests align or because they are themselves members of a Royal College of Medicine or the British Medical Association (BMA) (Select committee on the Constitution, 2017: 14). The Second Reading of a Bill provides a forum for these exchanges, and the written reports are revelatory of the positions held by government and the medical profession on proposed healthcare reforms (Germain, 2019). Part 1: Case history Creating the NHS, pre-1948 In 1944, as the Second World War still raged, plans for the National Health Service were set out in a White Paper. The political agenda in the UK in the immediate post-war period was driven by ambitions to change healthcare provision. The plan centred on two principles: the creation of a comprehensive healthcare service and the guarantee of free access to care for all citizens.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.030
Scholarly communication0.0180.010
Open science0.0010.012
Research integrity0.0120.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.398 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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 topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→