Information Technology Sophistication in Hospitals: A Field Study in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le secteur de la santé au Québec vit à l'heure des grands bouleversements. Plusieurs s'entendent à dire que les hôpitaux n'ont d'autre alternative que de faire appel aux technologies de pointe afin d'assurer un niveau de qualité des soins adéquat tout en minimisant les coûts associés à ces mêmes soins. Or, si l'on veut identifier les effets de la TI sur la performance des hôpitaux, il faut être capable de définir cette TI en tant que construit et caractériser cette dernière dans un but d'opérationalisation en tant que variable indépendante, dépendante ou modératrice dans un cadre conceptuel de recherche. Cette étude vise deux objectifs particuliers. Le premier consiste à développer un questionnaire mesurant le degré de sophistication des TI en milieu hospitalier et à le valider auprès de la population des hôpitaux québécois. Notre second objectif est de présenter, de façon sommaire, le profil des hôpitaux du Québec en matière de sophistication des TI.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".