MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2410032380 · doi:10.1177/0840470416646119

Value-based procurement

2016· review· en· W2410032380 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsConference Board of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcurementPurchasingValue (mathematics)BusinessHealth careValue for moneyValue-Based PurchasingOperations managementRisk analysis (engineering)MarketingIndustrial organizationComputer scienceEconomicsPublic economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Value-based healthcare models are being adopted globally to maximize value for patients. Given that procurement is at the heart of purchasing value, value-based procurement goes hand in hand with value-based healthcare. Shifting procurement's traditional focus on short-term cost savings to a more holistic objective that includes health system performance and patient outcomes, giving preference to longer-term cost efficiencies, and working with suppliers to identify opportunities to develop more innovative products and services, is proving successful in leading jurisdictions. This article presents an overview of value within healthcare systems and how healthcare value-based procurement is being implemented across various jurisdictions.

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.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.017

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 head0.479
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.015 · 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