MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1540505039 · doi:10.19255/42

Managing healthcare projects: comparing an open and closed- loop technology implementation

2014· article· en· W1540505039 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 Modern Project Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCausal loop diagramProcess managementClosed loopBusinessInformation and Communications TechnologyHealth careKnowledge managementComputer scienceOperations managementRisk analysis (engineering)System dynamicsEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The healthcare sector is changing its traditional operations and services by deploying new technological innovations to better manage unpredictable events and supply accurate responses in time. However, because of the complexity of technological solutions and the complexity of the organizational conditions found in many healthcare institutions, most of the technological projects fail. This paper attempts to evaluate factors that could influence the success of ICT projects according to two different implementation modes: open-loop and closed-loop.  Based on two study cases (end-to-end verification system and two-bins system for medicine inventory), we identified factors that affect both implementation patterns, some others influencing both models but having a deep impact on the open-loop implementation and factors that only hamper the open-loop strategy.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.258 · 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