MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047352255 · doi:10.1108/14777260410538889

Mission statements in Canadian hospitals

2004· article· en· W2047352255 on OpenAlex
Christopher K. Bart, Maureen Hupfer

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 Health Organization and Management · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Strategy and Culture
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMission statementStatement (logic)Context (archaeology)CriticismPerspective (graphical)Order (exchange)Public relationsSubject (documents)SociologyManagementBusinessAccountingPolitical scienceComputer scienceEconomicsLawHistoryLibrary scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most popular management tools in the world, the mission statement also is subject to widespread criticism. In order to improve our understanding of the mission statement's strategic value and to provide actionable recommendations for healthcare organizations, the paper adopted a social constructionist perspective in a mission statement study conducted among Canadian hospital executives. The paper found seven factors underlying 23 possible mission statement content items. Four of these (grand inspiration, benefactors, competitive orientation and business definition) corresponded to the dimensions of dominant managerial logic proposed by von Krogh and Grand, and were positively related to various behavioral, financial performance and mission achievement measures. The findings indicate that not all mission statement components are created equal and that the recommendations of major strategy texts may require reconsideration where this particular institutional context is concerned.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.253 · 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