MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043110363 · doi:10.1016/s0840-4704(10)60312-2

Change Readiness for SAP in the Canadian Healthcare System

2004· article· en· W2043110363 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mary Lou O'Neill, Pauline Downer

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careHealthcare systemBusinessNursingMedicineEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study described in this article was designed to assess the change readiness for e-business cost management systems (particularly SAP) within the Canadian healthcare system. Previous studies and experts suggest that change readiness is an important variable in the application of e-business cost management system implementation. One hundred and fifty-four chief executive officers within the Canadian healthcare system were surveyed. The response rate was 25.9 percent. The survey included a demographic sheet, which supported a better understanding of the profile of Canadian healthcare CEOs, their operational budget responsibilities, and their feelings toward e-business cost management systems. A change readiness instrument reviewed CEOs' change readiness scores in relation to four independent variables (implementation of an e-business cost management system, healthcare restructuring, budget size and tenure of the CEO). There was a significant difference between change readiness scores and the implementation of an e-business cost management system. Given the small sample size (n = 40), findings are limited. However the study offers more information on this issue than is found in the Canadian healthcare literature to date.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.282
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207