MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073099920 · doi:10.1108/13660750010326884

A framework for information systems evaluation: the case of an integrated community‐based health services delivery system

2000· article· en· W2073099920 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLeadership in Health Services · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Distress and Bankruptcy Prediction
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus (optics)Computer scienceInformation systemProcurementKnowledge managementManagement information systemsSoftwareProcess managementFocus groupRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information Systems (IS) theory concentrates on getting the right information at the right time in the right format to the right user. The development of information systems, then, requires focus on organizational objectives, designs and dynamics as much as it requires focus on the procurement of the most appropriate hardware and software. The essence of “systems analysis” should not focus on computer‐related concerns, but rather focus on the root of the problem which is the need for the right information. Moreover, not only should this analysis focus on the functionality of the organization but also on the improved effectiveness derived from the new or upgraded information system. In this paper, we present information ‐ in the form of outcome measures ‐ which are needed to initiate, and subsequently evaluate health delivery performance within Integrated Community‐Based Health Delivery Systems.

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)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.203 · 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