MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041970198 · doi:10.3917/riges.264.0034

La logistique hospitalière : un remède aux maux du secteur de la santé?

2001· article· fr· W2041970198 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGestion · 2001
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesMedicineGynecologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Face aux défis que doit relever le réseau de la santé de nombreux pays occidentaux, les auteurs exposent le fait qu’une amélioration des activités de logistique hospitalière pourrait être une avenue de solution qui permettrait une réduction des coûts tout en dégageant du temps chez le personnel soignant. Quatre parties composent cet article. La première partie définit l’envergure de la logistique hospitalière à l’intérieur d’un centre hospitalier. En s’inspirant de grilles d’analyse élaborées dans le domaine de la stratégie d’exploitation, la deuxième partie explore les rôles que la logistique hospitalière peut jouer. À la suite de cette présentation, la troisième partie cherche à préciser la position généralement adoptée par les services logistiques des centres hospitaliers. Finalement, la quatrième partie s’appuie sur une série d’observations réalisées aux États-Unis et en France pour suggérer des modèles alternatifs de gestion de la logistique hospitalière.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.398 · 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