MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003143818 · doi:10.1016/s0840-4704(10)60304-3

Fostering a Culture of Accountability through a Performance Appraisal System

2005· article· en· W2003143818 on OpenAlexaffabout
Asmita Gillani, Kristine Jarvi, Andrew De Angelis

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsYork Central Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityPerformance appraisalGovernment (linguistics)BusinessHealth careHealthcare systemPublic relationsPolitical scienceManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current climate in Canadian healthcare requires that healthcare providers be more accountable to the government and other stakeholders. Using a well-structured performance appraisal system that is based on quantifiable objectives and standards, a high level of accountability can be achieved. The objective of this article is to demonstrate how a sound performance appraisal system can increase accountability and performance of healthcare organizations and their senior management.

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)0.188
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.163
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1880.163
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0160.020
Scholarly communication0.0260.010
Open science0.0040.017
Research integrity0.0030.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicHealthcare Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207