Optimization Study of Medical Waiting Time from the Perspective of Behavioral Economics — Take Canada as an Example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides an in-depth look at the long-standing conundrum of long waiting times in the Canadian healthcare system and explores potential solutions from the perspective of behavioral economics, public-private partnerships (PPP), and evidence-based management. Despite Canada's reputation for universal health care, long waiting times for critical services persist, necessitating a comprehensive strategy. Multifaceted analyses point to factors contributing to inefficiencies, including an aging population, an increase in chronic diseases, and a shortage of healthcare professionals. New solutions are proposed by combining the elements of success, such as public-private partnerships, evidence-based management, and collaborative efforts. Global experiences in countries such as the United Kingdom, Spain, Turkey, Australia, Lesotho, and Iran provide insights into the potential advantages of public-private partnerships in improving healthcare delivery. To reduce the requirements, setting priorities, and restructuring as the key points of the alternative method provides a feasible strategy. In addition, solutions that work with patients, employers, and insurers aim to address inefficiencies and transform the healthcare system. An integrated approach addresses both symptoms and root causes to create a more efficient, patient-centered healthcare environment in Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".