Integrated Place-Based Primary Interventions: Levers and Tensions Related to Multilevel Governance for Community Integrated Pathways, A Multiple Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrated Place-Based Primary Interventions (IPPIs) are considered an innovative response to the challenges and complex issues faced in disadvantaged areas where traditional institutional services have difficulty reaching people in vulnerable situations. IPPIs are an innovative approach to the delivery of in services, conceived as an original community-based local care and service pathways. However, these intervention practices require adaptive modes of governance. In this article, we explore how and to what extent the mode of governance of IPPIs influences the performance of community-integrated pathways. To this end, using a qualitative exploratory multiple-case study design (observation and semi-structured interviews), we describe 4 IPPIs in 3 territories in Quebec. This includes an examination of the levers of action and tensions related to their governance and the performance levels of the community-integrated pathways. We conclude that collaborative and shared multilevel governance, despite its demanding nature, appears to contribute to the longevity of the actions and benefits of IPPIs and could prevent their relevance from being questioned.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".