MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140916953 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2008.19616

Evaluating the Balanced Scorecard at the University Health Network: An Impact Assessment

2008· article· en· W2140916953 on OpenAlexaffabout
Justin C. Young, Robert Bell, Adil Khalfan, Evert A. Lindquist

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting and Organizational Management
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Health and Long Term Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalanced scorecardHealth careFront lineBusinessProcess managementBest practiceHealth administrationOperations managementManagementPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The balanced scorecard (BSC) has become increasing popular in healthcare organizations. A recent study conducted at the University Health Network in Toronto explored the extent to which the BSC has focused and aligned various organizational units and departments around shared goals and objectives. The evaluation also assessed the BSC's impact on front-line staff and how the development and rollout of the BSC should be modified in the next planning iteration.

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)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.107
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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.107
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicAccounting and Organizational ManagementFrench-language works237,207