Hidden ownership, asymmetrical information, and multidecadal contractual obligations at Saskatchewan’s first public-private partnership long-term care home
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public-private partnerships (P3s) in Canadian long-term care homes are becoming more prevalent among government procurement service agencies. Information on the individual owners of these long-term care facilities is not reported in public registries or datasets. The present study remarks upon the difficulty of obtaining ownership information for a Canadian long-term care home with a private equity partner in comparison to a P3 nursing home in the United States. To discern the owners of a case study P3 long-term care home in Saskatchewan, we conducted a systematic literature review of white papers and grey literature. A comprehensive search of major electronic databases occurred between January to July 2024. Two equity owners of this facility were identified, with the involvement of seven other organizations. Ownership information for the case study long-term care home was difficult to obtain, outdated by almost a decade, and questionable in accuracy. Through P3s, Canadian governments have incorporated profit-seeking and hidden ownership into the public long-term care system.
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 | 0.020 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".