Using Business Ontology to Integrate Business Architecture and Business Process Management for Healthcare Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient safety and quality of health care services continue to be an issue within healthcare organizations. Quality improvement of healthcare processes at a systems level requires a shared language so the system is well understood across and between business areas. Business ontology provides the ability to create a shared language which can be used to integrate business process management (BPM) and business architecture (BA) concepts to identify, prioritize, and plan system wide improvement. The effective application of this comprehensive management approach has been demonstrated using medication management services within a publicly funded Canadian healthcare organization. This article illustrates how the foundational ontology developed by the Global University Alliance and the related Business Process Management Ontology (BPMO) can be used to facilitate the integration of BA and BPM concepts to improve quality of medication management. The development of business artefacts resulted in a prioritized list of improvement initiatives and an action plan to implement and monitor the initiatives. The integration of BPM and BA using an ontology in a healthcare setting yields improved services at the systems level.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".