MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125220147 · doi:10.1109/iembs.1995.575347

The development of a balanced scorecard information system

2002· article· en· W2125220147 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Gordon, Hans Kunov, A. Dolan, M. Carter

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalanced scorecardProcess managementComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Strategy mapService (business)Information systemService delivery frameworkKnowledge managementRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New patient-focused care models require new approaches to the delivery of management information. The balanced scorecard is a framework for a set of measures that give top managers a fast but comprehensive view of strategically important indicators. By graphically demonstrating information trends from four different perspectives, the balanced scorecard provides insight into dynamically complex situations and allows managers to assess whether improvements in one area may have been achieved at the expense of another. We have developed a balanced scorecard information system prototype for a cardiovascular patient service unit using a spiral model development cycle. The system has been very useful for demonstrating interrelationships between indicators such as length of stay and cost per case and has positively impacted on the management of a cardiovascular patient service unit.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.303 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207