MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2227310033 · doi:10.1177/0840470415614842

Decision-making in healthcare as a complex adaptive system

2015· review· en· W2227310033 on OpenAlexaff
Craig Kuziemsky

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careHealthcare deliveryHealthcare systemComplex adaptive systemComputer scienceKnowledge managementHealthcare industryBusinessProcess managementArtificial intelligenceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Healthcare transformation requires a change in how the business of healthcare is done. Traditional decision-making approaches based on stable and predictable systems are inappropriate in healthcare because of the complex nature of healthcare delivery. This article reviews challenges to using traditional decision-making approaches in healthcare and how insight from Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) could support healthcare management. The article also provides a system model to guide decision-making in healthcare as a CAS.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.333
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations126
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207