MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148181126 · doi:10.1177/0840470415570174

What’s all the buzz about change management?

2015· review· en· W2148181126 on OpenAlexaff
Janet Davidson

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Art Integration
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarketing buzzChange management (ITSM)BusinessHealth careKnowledge managementProcess managementComputer scienceMarketingEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Change management is more important than ever in healthcare. It is an essential part of the management tool box and to downplay its importance is to risk serious challenges, including failure, in implementing and even more importantly, sustaining change. All too often, change management is something that is handed off to a special department or even contracted out, without due consideration of the need to develop the knowledge and skills in and across the organization. Some basics for successful change management are identified and discussed.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.014
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.293
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicEducation and Art IntegrationFrench-language works237,207