MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976879500 · doi:10.1108/13660750410550539

Managerial process: the reflective practitioner

2004· article· en· W1976879500 on OpenAlexaff
Paul V. Greenall

Bibliographic record

VenueLeadership in Health Services · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Learning and Leadership
Canadian institutionsWaypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValue (mathematics)Public relationsManagement stylesPharmacistProcess (computing)AutocracyHealth careService (business)PharmacyReflective practiceSociologyBusinessKnowledge managementMedicineNursingComputer scienceMarketingPolitical sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The successful management journey is replete with moments of truth. Recognizing those moments and their significance for successful managerial practice is both a reflective and a conscious practice. This article, written by a successful pharmacist who now manages a busy public service hospital pharmacy documents his management journey from starting position as a drug store pharmacist to his present position in the public service. The paper uses managerial process theory as a critical tool to assess the author's own managerial style. Starting off as an autocratic manager with micro management tendencies, he has now developed a different style of management built on a basic philosophy about the value of people. He sees a need for managers to build a work environment that supports the efforts of employees. This style has not only made him a more effective people manager and motivator, but he argues it has also made him a better pharmacist. The author concludes by advocating the value of reflective practice, particularly for healthcare administrators as a means of balancing the technical demands of their disciplines with the ongoing requirements of managing people.

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.032
Scholarly communication0.0230.021
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeadership in Health ServicesSame topicOrganizational Learning and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207