La démarche Lean au centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke : un déploiement par « contamination »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke (CHUS) a formellement amorcé une démarche Lean en 2008. Au début de 2014, plus d’une cinquantaine de projets et d’initiatives avaient été réalisés. Cet article décrit cette démarche, qui s’est construite au fil des expériences, en mettant l’accent sur son caractère « contaminant » et progressif dans le secteur de la santé du Québec où le Lean était quasiment absent avant 2008. L’aventure est décrite en quatre phases, soit le démarrage, la consolidation, l’expansion et la transformation. L’analyse permet de comparer cette démarche avec celles d’autres hôpitaux décrites dans la littérature et de poser les principaux défis pour l’avenir. Nous dressons un portrait de ce qui attend le CHUS alors que s’amorce la mise en place de son système de gestion de la performance (SP CHUS) s’inspirant des apprentissages effectués depuis le début de l’aventure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".