MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136189887 · doi:10.1177/0840470414562638

Using the project management office to connect the dots between projects and strategy

2015· review· en· W2136189887 on OpenAlexaff
Jacqueline R. Phan

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessPMOS logicHealth careFunction (biology)Quality (philosophy)Process managementKnowledge managementTotal quality managementQuality managementMarketingComputer scienceEngineeringPolitical scienceService (business)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Project management is recognized as an essential skill required for healthcare leadership and as a result, Project Management Offices (PMOs) in healthcare organizations have become commonplace. When PMOs are well suited and fit to their organization, they are being valued for their ability to support appropriate trade-offs between investments, capacity, and quality. This article provides an overview of healthcare PMOs and advocates for elevating the role of the healthcare PMO from a monitoring and reporting function to a leader and the engine for strategic change within an organization.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.536
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.012 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207