MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997127208 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2014.23774

Mount Sinai Hospital’s Approach to Ontario’s Health System Funding Reform

2014· article· en· W1997127208 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tyler Chalk, Davina Lau, Matthew Morgan, Sandra Dietrich, Mary Agnes Beduz, Chaim M. Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMountTransformational leadershipGovernment (linguistics)BusinessQuality (philosophy)Quality managementBest practicePublic administrationMedicinePublic relationsPolitical scienceManagementMarketingEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In April 2012, the Ontario government introduced Health System Funding Reform (HSFR), a transformational shift in how hospitals are funded. Mount Sinai Hospital recognized that moving from global funding to a "patient-based" model would have substantial operational and clinical implications. Adjusting to the new funding environment was set as a top corporate priority, serving as the strategic basis for re-examining and redesigning operations to further improve both quality and efficiency. Two years into HSFR, this article outlines Mount Sinai Hospital's approach and highlights key lessons learned.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicHealthcare Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207