MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6908445975 · doi:10.26190/unsworks/18653

Contestability in human services and its impact on service providers: A case study of community aged care in New South Wales

2015· dissertation· en· W6908445975 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUNSWorks (UNSW Sydney) · 2015
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveService (business)Scope (computer science)Service providerHuman servicesProduct (mathematics)Empirical researchEmpirical evidenceQuarter (Canadian coin)Key (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major reason for the substantial marketisation of human services over the last quarter century has been a belief that greater contestability has a positive impact on service providers, by enabling new and innovative providers to enter and giving all incumbents more incentive to improve services. Critics dispute this, claiming that the effects are often negative, allowing the entry of profit-maximisers and generating incentives for all providers to cut costs at the expense of good services. This thesis examines these conflicting claims, both theoretically in relation to human services in general, and through an empirical study of one service in one location. The first part of the thesis considers the theoretical implications for the concept of contestability when the product is a human service, and the resulting effects on the structure and operatipn of markets, the type of providers, and the incentives facing providers. A key aim is to assess marketisation on its own terms as far as possible and examine human services industries in the same way as other industries. An analytical framework grounded in conventional economic theory, but adapted to the reality of human services, is developed to examine con testability in specific markets. This framework is then used for the empirical study of the community aged care industry in New South Wales (NSW). This was a mixed-method study, with data obtained primarily from interviews, document analysis, and analysis of funding data. Both parts of the research show that there is substantial, intrinsic market failure in human services. This creates much scope for poor practice by providers, and requires limits on contestability to maximise the outcomes of services. Notwithstanding this, if implemented in a limited and strategic way, with a small number of providers competing on the basis of quality, then contestability can have positive effects on the capacity of providers to deliver good services. Even though there are tight limits on contestability in the NSW community aged care industry, there has been continuing new entry, vigorous competition, stability in the supply of services, and strong incentives for providers to improve the quality, responsiveness and efficiency of their services.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.328 · 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