MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2073941856 · doi:10.1016/s0840-4704(10)60034-8

Opening up the Black Box of Performance Measurement

2002· article· en· W2073941856 on OpenAlexaff
D. David Persaud, L Nestman

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careOutcome (game theory)Knowledge managementHealth professionalsBlack boxComputer scienceProcess managementBusinessPolitical scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health outcomes measurement has not fulfilled its potential. An important reason is the inability of the systems in place to properly utilize the information provided by outcome indicators to improve care. This paper describes a measurement framework that empowers healthcare professionals to act on information that is provided by using logical predetermined protocols. The benefits of this framework include enhanced evidence-based healthcare processes, organizational learning through knowledge generation and dissemination, and improved health outcomes.

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)0.258
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.301
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2580.301
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.042
Scholarly communication0.0150.030
Open science0.0050.011
Research integrity0.0060.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.212 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management Forum→Same topicPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare→French-language works237,207→