Understanding the role of contextual influences on local health-care decision making: case study results from Ontario Canada. Soc Sci Med 2001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approaches to involving the public in local health care decision making processes (and analyses of these approaches) have tended to treat participation and publics uniformly in search of the ideal method of involving the public or providing the same opportunities for public participation regardless of differing socio-economic, cultural, insitutional or political contexts within which decisions are made. Less attention has been given to the potential for various contextual factors to influence both the methods employed and the outcomes of such community decision-making processes. The paper explores the role that context (three sets of contextual influences more specifically) plays in shaping community decision-making processes. Results from case studies of public participation in local health-care decision making in four geographic communities in Ontario are presented. During the study period, two of these communities were actively involved in health services restructuring processes while one had recently completed its process and the fourth had not yet engaged in one. Several themes emerge from the case studies regarding the identification and role of contextual influences in differentially shaping participation in local health care decision-making. These include the propensity for communities with different social and structural attributes to engage in different ‘‘styles’ ’ of participation; the importance attached to ‘‘community values’ ’ in shaping both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of participation; the role of health councils, local government and inter-organizational collaboration as participation ‘‘enablers’’; and the politicization of participation that occurs around contentious issues such as hospital
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".