MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154589804 · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5183

NHS shows  1.5bn surplus but quarter of trusts have weak financial arrangements

2011· article· en· W2154589804 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. O'Dowd

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Services Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)BusinessAuditCommissionWorkforceFinanceProductivityAccountingEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The NHS in England made a surplus of £1.5bn (€1.7bn; $2.4bn) last year, but around a quarter of acute trusts have been rated as having weak financial arrangements, according to a report from the national public spending watchdog. An Audit Commission report published on 11 August says that trusts managed to make savings through a combination of improving clinical productivity—including managing demand, reducing length of stay, moving to day case surgery or outpatient treatments, and bed closures—and reducing workforce costs. Substantial savings came from the 7274 redundancies and resignations in the financial year 2010-11 from NHS organisations, most of …

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1650.072

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.301 · 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
GenreEditorial

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicHealth Services Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207