Giving patients a louder voice in the health care system?: a critical evaluation of the Ontario Health Services Appeal and Review Board
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Romanow Report concluded that Canadians are pleased with the health care system, but dissatisfied with the government's management of it. This dissatisfaction is partly caused by a lack of public participation at the policy-making level, and is exacerbated by the limits of what legal mechanisms there are to challenge resulting government decisions. It is against this backdrop that this thesis seeks to determine whether a specialized appeal mechanism, the Ontario Health Services Appeal and Review Board, can provide patients with an accessible and effective way to challenge government decisions about the availability of health care services. It evaluates the Board's practices through an examination of relevant statutes and regulations, as well as the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, Annual Reports and unreported decisions. As it concludes, the Board has the potential to provide patients with a louder voice in the health care system, but to fulfill this potential it must be made more accessible and, especially, more responsive to patients and their complaints.
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 | 0.149 | 0.278 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| 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".