Book review: Medical Doctors in Health Reforms: A Comparative Study of England and Canada Medical Doctors in Health Reforms: A Comparative Study of England and Canada, DenisJean-LouisGermainSabrinaRégisCatherineVeronesiGianluca. (Bristol, Policy Press, 2022), 250 pp. £80, ISBN 978-1-473-5215-0 (hardcover) ISBN 978-1-473-5217-4 (epub) ISBN 978-1-473-5216-7 (ePdf)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health systems around the world are subject to almost perpetual cycles of reform.The authors of this volume recognise that if we are to benefit from this activity (and limit its harms), we must get better at it.To this end, they examine the impact of the interaction of political and institutional factors on attempts at reforming health systems, using case studies from Canada and England -where the crucial relation is the one between the medical profession and governments.Their aim is to arrive at an original model for understanding these interactions that is useful to policy makers and practitioners as they seek to improve both the process and the outcomes of reform.The multinational, interdisciplinary team of authors bring to the task extensive experience in researching diverse but relevant areas and, as will emerge in the account below, a sharp understanding of effective collaboration.The authors make it clear that their work is built on the legacy of scholars such as Rudolph Klein 1 and Chris Ham 2 in the United Kingdom and Carolyn Tuohy 3 in Canada and provide a concise survey of the literature on medical doctors and health reform.Against this background, the book's unique contribution is a novel theoretical model for explaining the interaction of medicine and government, underpinned by second-order analysis of contemporaneous studies from multiple jurisdictions.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it