MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1520704279 · doi:10.1108/02621710310474750

A cross method analysis of the impact of culture and communications upon a health care merger

2003· article· en· W1520704279 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Development · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Strategy and Culture
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMergers and acquisitionsHuman resourcesTest (biology)BusinessSet (abstract data type)Variety (cybernetics)Organizational cultureCritical success factorResource (disambiguation)Public relationsMarketingEconomicsComputer scienceManagementPolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The incidence of mergers and acquisitions has proliferated throughout the world including all sectors of our society, both municipal and industrial, private and public. However, the majority (60‐80 percent) of them do not reach their intended objectives owing to the fact that the merging organizations do not realize the impact of neglecting the human resource factor. Although they properly assess and address the financial and legal issues, they continually overlook this critical factor. The present literature suggests what organizations should do to reverse these negative effects and how to properly address the human resources issues. This research seeks to test this list of suggestions, in the form of a unified model, employing the single case study method. The case in question is a newly merged health centre comprised of four well‐established hospitals. Rather than a set of hypotheses, sets of prescriptions were developed to test the model. Data from interviews and existing documents are used to support or modify the final model. The qualitative results utilized a cross‐method analysis that supported the majority of the unified model, requiring a few modifications. This research has subsequently lead to the development of a unified human resources model for the proper and successful implementation of mergers and acquisitions. The implications of these findings for all organizations, and for mergers and acquisitions theory and practice, are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.300 · 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