MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290388456 · doi:10.1177/0840470415612919

Physicians at the executive table

2015· review· en· W2290388456 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Eagle

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Table (database)PsychologyPublic relationsRound tableMedical educationManagementMedicinePolitical scienceBusinessComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores factors that influence decision-making by physician leaders, particularly at the executive level. Most physician leaders maintain their clinical practices and some may also have active academic careers, resulting in multiple accountabilities. Managing these accountabilities requires expenditure of time and energy. Other members of the executive team may also bear multiple accountabilities, but physicians are unique in the complexity of their work environment. This article is not intended to be an academic treatise but rather a summary of experiences observed and lived by the author over 25 years as a physician leader.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.353 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207