MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967126861 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2014.23882

Improving Healthcare Using Lean Processes

2014· article· en· W1967126861 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G. Ross Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Supply Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careBest practiceBusinessHealth administrationOperations managementProcess managementNursingMedicineManagementPublic healthEngineeringEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For more than a decade, healthcare organizations across Canada have been using Lean management tools to improve care processes, reduce preventable adverse events, increase patient satisfaction and create better work environments. The largest system-wide effort in Canada, and perhaps anywhere, is currently under way in Saskatchewan. The jury is still out on whether Lean efforts in that province, or elsewhere in Canada, are robust enough to transform current delivery systems and sustain new levels of performance. This issue of Healthcare Quarterly features several articles that provide a perspective on Lean methods in healthcare.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicQuality and Supply ManagementFrench-language works237,207