MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1567352407 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v7n6p205

Reconsidering Planning and Management of Medical Devices Procurement in Public Health Services in Cyprus

2015· article· en· W1567352407 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Μάμας Θεοδώρου, Μαρίνα Γεωργίου, Athanasios Nikolentzos, Thalia Bellali

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcurementDelphi methodBusinessGovernment (linguistics)DelphiQuality (philosophy)Process (computing)Operations managementMarketingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hospital procurement is a crucial field for any health care system, not only for economic reasons but also for reasons related to the quality and safety of the services provided. That is why the process of procurement is, in most countries, governed by a strict legal framework and policy mechanisms. This study investigates the problems and inefficiencies associated with the procurement of medical devices in public hospitals in Cyprus and formulates empirically documented proposals for improvement. Using the Delphi method, a group of 38 experts approach the procurement system in Cyprus from different angles, achieving high rates of consensus on 35 different statements on the weaknesses and problems of the current medical device procurement system, as well as presenting proposals and recommendations for improvement. The findings are highly valuable for future policy initiatives in Cyprus in the light of the economic crisis and the expected implementation of the new General Health Insurance System (GeSY), which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus and the Troika has agreed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.408
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.128 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207