MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluating the Impact of Organizational Learning Initiatives

2002· article· en· W2095315308 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

VenueJournal for Nurses in Staff Development · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Learning and Leadership
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityNova Scotia Cancer CentreCancer Care Nova ScotiaTechnical University of Nova Scotia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Health careProcess (computing)Knowledge managementComputer scienceOrganizational learningWork (physics)Management scienceProcess managementPsychologyBusinessArtificial intelligencePolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the process used to develop an evaluation model for organizational learning in a healthcare environment. This model moves away from the traditional focus on learner satisfaction and places greater emphasis on performance and impact evaluation. The evaluation model is grounded in the work of Kirkpatrick (1998) and Phillips (1991) and can be applied to a variety of programs. Using a highly practical approach, the model enables educators to determine the most appropriate level of evaluation for a learning opportunity and to identify effective and efficient strategies. This model could be readily adopted by healthcare organizations interested in enhancing the evaluation of the learning initiatives.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.270 · 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