Méthode de répartition des coûts unitaires et des coûts hospitaliers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La recherche de l'efficience a favorisé la publication d'un nombre important de travaux d'évaluation dans le domaine des établissements de santé. Certains d'entre eux adoptent une approche méthodologique qui semble, à première vue, critiquable en ce qui concerne la répartition des frais généraux ou de soutien au. centres d'activités de l'établissement. L'objectif du présent article est de vérifier, à partir de données réelles d'utilisation des ressources hospitalières, si le choix d'une méthode de répartition affecte significativement les coûts unitaires découlant de cette consommation de ressources. Les résultats obtenus à partir de notre échantillon suggèrent qu'il n'existe aucune relation statistiquement significative entre les méthodes utilisées et les coûts unitaires ainsi produits.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.228 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.008 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".