MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078219770 · doi:10.1071/ah020181

Organisational culture and safety: an interdependent relationship

2002· review· en· W2078219770 on OpenAlex
Geoff Clark

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

VenueAustralian Health Review · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSafety cultureInterdependenceHarmPatient safetyHealth careOrganizational culturePublic relationsGovernment (linguistics)Public healthPopulation healthQuality (philosophy)BusinessEconomic growthPolitical scienceMedicineNursingManagementEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the early 1990s, a body of evidence regarding the lack of quality in health care has emerged in many countries including Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the United States of America. It has brought the subject of health care safety to the top of the policy agenda and the forefront of the public debate worldwide. Studies show not only that failure of quality occurs, but also that it inflicts harm and wastes resources on a large scale. Experts in risk management, both within and outside the health care industry, emphasize system failures and system-driven errors over direct human error, and accentuate the crucial role that organisational culture plays in ensuring safety. Examination of the interrelationship between culture and safety in organisations demonstrates that organisational relationships influence both culture and safety and that effective two-way communication is pivotal to the success of the development of a corporate 'safety culture'.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.525
GPT teacher head0.593
Teacher spread0.068 · 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