MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388749568 · doi:10.1177/08404704231209945

Strengthening health system leadership in practice

2023· article· en· W4388749568 on OpenAlexaffabout
Phil Cady, Cheryl Heykoop

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsRoyal Roads University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPraxisPublic relationsHealth careLeadership developmentLeadership studiesPsychologyMedical educationHealthcare systemNeuroleadershipLeadership styleSociologyPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The field of health leadership is shifting rapidly, and there is an opportunity to learn with health leaders about what is needed to support health leadership education, research, and practice. In 2022, to augment student feedback and faculty praxis, Royal Roads University conducted 12 virtual interviews with senior health system leaders across various settings to learn how health leaders can better respond to emerging and future leadership needs and priorities facing health systems. Findings from this study informed the development of a health-specific elective for the Master of Arts in Leadership, Health Specialization program entitled Considerations for Health Systems Renewal. This elective explores the following topics that emerged from this research study: (1) an orientation to possibility; (2) emerging strategic human resource concerns; (3) healthcare innovation; (4) relational and social systems leadership; (5) polarity thinking; (6) trauma-informed leadership; and (7) Canadian healthcare networks. In this article, we share our research process and findings to arrive at these recommendations.

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)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.011
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0020.018
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207