Evaluation of Emergency Preparedness and Response Activities 2012-13 to 2016-17
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluation Purpose and ScopeThis evaluation assesses the emergency preparedness and response activities (also called program) undertaken by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) between 2012-13 and 2016-17.It examined the relevance of these activities to Canadians, the achievement of intended goals and the efficiency of emergency management within PHAC. Office of Audit and Evaluation Health Canada and Public Health Agency of Canada viiiRecommendation 5: Ensure lessons-learned reviews for Health Portfolio-related events and exercises are undertaken in a timely fashion and proportionate to the complexity and size of the public health event or exercise.Continuous improvement is a fundamental principle and key component of efficient and effective emergency management.The lessons learned approach is standard for emergency preparedness and response activities; however, the evaluation found inconsistencies in the collection, analysis and reporting of lessons learned following exercises and events, leading to similar shortcomings being experienced across multiple activations.Furthermore, when completed, the findings and recommendations were neither broadly shared, nor approved at the appropriate level for strategic consideration.The Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response has recently developed a revised, comprehensive process that should guide future lessons-learned activities.This process should be reviewed to ensure that it can be implemented as planned, that, when appropriate, it takes into consideration lessons learned from the National Microbiological Laboratory Emergency Operations Centre and Regional Emergency Coordination Centres, and that results are communicated broadly. Recommendation 6: Ensure that the purpose of the IM and IT platforms is clear and addresses current and anticipated needs.There are currently three information management platforms (the All-Events Response Operations application, the Laboratory Information Management System, and the Emergency Management System) used within PHAC to support the emergency preparedness and response function.Each platform is independent, but similar information is collected by all three systems.This duplication presents complications when seeking an authoritative source of data for planning and reporting purposes.Although some duplicate information is collected, key informants indicated that these platforms have the capacity to perform unique functions.PHAC should review platform requirements, both current and anticipated, and implement these with a clear understanding of their purpose, how these systems will be synchronized and which system will serve as the authoritative source for reporting purposes for each identified requirement.
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 | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
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".