MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089493530 · doi:10.1258/hsmr.2008.008013

Using the balanced scorecard in the development of community partnerships

2009· article· en· W2089493530 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

VenueHealth Services Management Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalanced scorecardGeneral partnershipProcess managementProcess (computing)BusinessService (business)Performance measurementStrategy mapKnowledge managementComputer scienceMarketingFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The benefits of community partnerships have been well established in the health service literature. However, measuring these benefits and associated outcomes is relatively new. This paper presents an innovative initiative in the application of a balanced scorecard framework for measuring and monitoring partnership activity at the community level, while adopting principles of evidence-based practice to the partnership process. In addition, it serves as an excellent example of how organizations can apply scorecard methodology to move away from relationship-based partnerships and into new collaborations of which they can select - using a formal skill and competency assessment for partnership success.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.638
GPT teacher head0.603
Teacher spread0.035 · 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