MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413790900 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v10i4.3198

Standardizing health data stewardship principles and practices in Canada

2025· article· en· W4413790900 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kim McGrail, Maureen Trebilcock

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Health InformationUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStewardship (theology)BusinessData scienceEnvironmental resource managementComputer sciencePolitical scienceEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ObjectiveCanada is a constitutional federation, and responsibility for delivery of health and social services rests primarily with provinces and territories. This creates variation in legislation, regulation, policies and practice, including for governance and stewardship of health and social data. We describe collaborative efforts led by CIHI to reduce variations. MethodsThe starting points were recommendations from a pandemic-inspired expert advisory group on a pan-Canadian Health Data Strategy and an associated Pan-Canadian Health Data Charter. The Charter identifies 10 principles that “honour the duty to put people and populations at the core of all decisions about the disclosure, access and use of health information.” These resources were augmented with: a data stewardship framework crafted over eight months by a committee of all levels of government; a literature review; and interviews with key exemplars such as England’s National Data Guardian. The development process included engagement with many different interest holders. ResultsThere is widespread recognition that standardizing approaches to data stewardship requires a shift in mindsets and collective culture. It will also require a redistribution of power, but it is less clear if that is widely accepted or understood. There is broad agreement on a definition of data stewardship and a set of principles for data sharing. Together, these highlight, among other things: the need to consider (and define) public benefit; the duty to share; the need for transparency; attention to privacy and safety for both individuals as well as groups and communities; and a commitment to safeguarding and nurturing data for now and for the future. There is also a commitment to uphold principles of Indigenous data sovereignty, as those are defined by Indigenous Peoples. ConclusionData stewardship responsibilities rest with a large number of people across health care institutions, organizations and providers. A principles-based approach establishes broad and clear commitment to a common “north star”. The required transformation in data stewardship will take time and willingness to change, including more inclusive and shared decision-making.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.748
GPT teacher head0.688
Teacher spread0.061 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207