MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129005385 · doi:10.1016/j.hcmf.2010.02.004

“Collective Climate” in Hospital Settings: A Tool to Better Target Work Climate Improvement Strategies

2010· article· en· W2129005385 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maxime Paquet, Serge Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)BusinessEnvironmental resource managementProcess managementOperations managementEnvironmental scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Work climate continuous improvement programs are implemented to create and maintain healthy workplaces. This article presents evidence-based supports for the use of "collective climates" as a tool to better target improvement strategies, taking into account that work climate is not only a key for attraction and retention issues but also for performance and quality issues. Our study in 3 different Canadian hospitals shed light on 6 typical configurations that involve specific organizational development strategies.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207