MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W179860354

A critical review of financial measures as reported in the Ontario hospital balanced scorecard.

2007· review· en· W179860354 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Parkinson, Peter Tsasis, Marcela Porporato

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalanced scorecardGovernment (linguistics)BusinessAccountingKey (lock)Performance measurementFinanceProcess managementMarketingComputer scienceComputer security
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For Ontario hospitals in Canada, the Financial Performance and Condition measures in the Ontario hospital balanced scorecard are especially of interest since in the foreseeable future, they may be linked to provincial government funding decisions. However, we find that these measures lack valuable information on key attributes that affect organizational performance. We suggest changes that focus on key drivers of performance and reflect the operational realities of Ontario hospitals.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0130.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.410
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.107 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHealthcare Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207