MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944204157 · doi:10.15353/cjo.76.529

Réduire le roulement de personnel

2014· article· fr· W2944204157 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pauline Blachford

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometry · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychologyHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C a na d i e n n e d ' o p t o m é t r i e vo l .76 i s su e 2 32 Pauline Blachford consulte les optométristes sur la façon de réduire les rendez-vous non pris, d'accroître les ventes d'articles de lunetterie et d'augmenter la productivité des employés.Elle a acquis une vaste expérience dans l'industrie de la santé oculaire, dont 17 ans pour White Rock Optometry en Colombie-Britannique. Pauline donne fréquemment des conférences sur l'optométrie et elle est une chroniqueuse régulière de la RCO.Pour de plus amples renseignements, consultez le paulineblachford.com.« Bon sang!Une autre démission d'employé!Au moment même où nous trouvions notre rythme.» J'entends cela constamment.Le roulement de personnel est l'un des aspects les plus frustrants d'une pratique.Quand un employé démissionne, un optométriste doit consacrer le peu de temps et d'énergie qui lui reste encore pour trouver un remplaçant.Pendant ce temps, la charge de travail des autres employés s'alourdit, et le départ mine leur moral au bureau.Tous en paient le prix.La recherche a établi que le remplacement d'un employé coûte à une entreprise 150 % du salaire annuel de cet employé 1 .Cela s'explique, en partie, par les ressources nécessaires à la recherche et à la formation d'un remplaçant.Dans le but d'atténuer cet effet, de nombreux employeurs réduisent le temps, l'énergie et les ressources financières qu'ils consacrent à leurs employés.

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)0.008
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.011

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.382 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometrySame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207