MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040899129 · doi:10.1108/18325910510635308

Costs, incentives and changing resource allocations in health care organisations: comparing the UK and Canada

2005· article· en· W2040899129 on OpenAlex
Sue Llewellyn, Ron Eden, Colin M. Lay

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Accounting & Organizational Change · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting and Organizational Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveBusinessHealth careAccountingControl (management)Resource allocationResource (disambiguation)Public economicsEconomicsEconomic growthMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Management accounting, inter alia, gives information on how resources are allocated within organisations. If managers wish to change patterns of resource allocation, accounting knowledge is pivotal to any change processes. In health care organisations resources follow decisions made by clinicians, hence to have an impact on resource allocations managers must influence them. Direct managerial control over clinicians is not possible or desirable in health care organisations. This article suggests that incentives are an alternative to control in health care and investigates the impact of financial incentives within hospitals, utilising a naturally occurring experimental situation that has arisen between the UK and Canada.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.199 · 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