Dataset related to the characteristics of the champion that influence the implementation of quality improvement programs in health facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analyses of the present data are reported in the article "What are the characteristics of the champion that influence the implementation of quality improvement programs?" [5]. Data were collected from April to September 2019 using a qualitative data collection tool, an interview guide (see Appendix 1). A total of 21 staff were interviewed from three different health facilities in the Northern Department of Haiti. They gave their perceptions about the qualities and the characteristics of the champions involved in the planning and implementation of quality improvement initiatives in the health facilities in order to introduce change for a better quality of care. This data article provides an overview of the content of those interviews in terms of the characteristics of the champions. In addition, instructions are included about the output of Atlas ti software. You could reuse those data to get a better understanding of the quality and the characteristics of the champions that play a critical role in the implementation of quality improvement programs. The dataset includes the following: - Raw data: interviews transcripts - The Atlas ti software outputs: codes and quotations - The codebook.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".