MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131476513

Examining the effects of Employee involvement in the Health Care Workplace: The case of Ridge Meadows Hospital extended care Units

2005· dissertation· en· W2131476513 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ashley J. Bennington

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Health careContext (archaeology)PoliticsSkepticismBusinessPublic relationsPolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomicsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Faced with increasing fiscal restraint and political pushes for efficiency, Canada's health care system is on the verge of maximizing internal resources through employee involvement programs. However, faced with a history of poor labour-management relations, broken promises, and general mistrust, the employees of these organizations are skeptical at best when faced with the introduction of an employee involvement program. Using the context of an organizational change initiative at Ridge Meadows Hospital in Maple Ridge, British Columbia, an examination of the usage of employee involvement was conducted. While the findings closely corroborate management literature espousing the benefits of employee involvement programs, key obstacles must still be overcome to maximize its effectiveness. Overall, the usage of employee involvement may hold the promise of realizing such internal gains that Canada's health care system may be able to stave off the pressure to privatize or consume ever increasing portions of government

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealthcare Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207