MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409337424 · doi:10.5334/ijic.icic24596

Where Engagement, Equity, and Leadership Meet: Acting on our Shared Values and Vision

2025· article· en· W4409337424 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Precious, Melissa McCallum

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)BusinessPublic relationsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Greater Hamilton Health Network (GHHN) is one of the first of 57 Ontario Health Teams across the province, and one of twelve chosen as an accelerated OHT, with the purpose of transforming healthcare in partnership with patients, families, care partners, primary care, local organizations, and the community that is equitable, culturally safe, and patient centred. The GHHN has been built on collective efforts to improve population health and encourage integrated health and social care. If the time for healthcare transformation is now, and the opportunity to act is ours, the first question we need to ask ourselves, is on what values and principles will we build and understand our vision for healthcare so that we are able to move into action with confidence and clarity of purpose. Leaders hold the tension to consider and plan new ways of approaching complex problems through forming a strong foundation that considers the roles, values and principles of engagement, equitable healthcare and multisectoral leadership. While we are often caught between the need to transform and the need to continue providing care in a fast-paced world, both require an integrated care approach. When considering integrated care approaches and system design there are elements; engagement, leadership, and equity, that are vital to its success that are sometimes overlooked and underdeveloped. To understand the importance of these elements we must first consider the role of leadership and the values and principles that underpin the actions of an organization and system. Summary (Core aim of the workshop): In this workshop we will explore how having shared values and vision among partners that is soundly rooted in health equity, engagement and integrated care allows leaders and organizations to confidently move more easily into meaningful action. Come prepared to discuss the balance between adaptive and transformational approaches to system change and how shared values support integrated care approaches. Target audience: This workshop is open to everyone and will work to provide meaningful learning, unlearning, relearning and reflection opportunities for individuals working toward system transformation founded in a shared vision and integrated care. Facilitators / speakers (names and roles) Melissa McCallum, Executive Director, Greater Hamilton Health Network Key Learnings/Take away Considering the importance of shared values and vision among partners rooted in health equity, engagement and integrated care allows leaders and organizations to confidently move more easily into meaningful action. Attendees will: Explore the connections between shared values, integrated care, system transformation, and meaningful action Hear stories about shared values and vision among partners in implemented integrated care projects Understand the importance of engagement and partnership of people with lived and living experience Explore the role of leaders and organizations to develop a solid foundation to support workplace culture, shared values among multi-sectoral partners and collective action Explore adaptive and transformation approaches to system change that support a shared vision Format 15 mins- Intro (introductions, overview of GHHN, purpose of workshop and objectives) 30 Minutes- Formal Presentation (shared values and vision among partners that is soundly rooted in health equity, engagement and integrated care allows leaders and organizations to confidently move more easily into meaningful action) 30 minutes- Engaging participants: facilitated discussion, exploring values and vision beyond the wall plaque 10 Minutes- feedback and questions 5 Minutes- Closing

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0310.047
Scholarly communication0.0440.031
Open science0.0080.045
Research integrity0.0190.043
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.309 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Integrated CareSame topicService-Learning and Community EngagementFrench-language works237,207