MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Desafios à Gestão do Desempenho: análise lógica de uma Política de Avaliação na Vigilância em Saúde

2020· article· pt· W3109890421 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luciana Caroline Albuquerque Bezerra, Eronildo Felisberto, Juliana Martins Barbosa da Silva Costa, Cínthia Kalyne de Almeida Alves, Zulmira Hartz

Bibliographic record

VenueCiência & Saúde Coletiva · 2020
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Nursing, Elderly Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acknowledging the contributions of the assessment area in supporting the performance of health policies, is to admit it in an ongoing and permanent way in the management context. This requires a set of procedures that go beyond monitoring and evaluation practices, known as performance management. The goal of this study was to analyze the logic of the Health Surveillance (HS) Evaluation Policy of Pernambuco, comparing it with the corresponding Canadian policy. For this purpose, a qualitative study of logical analysis of the program theory was carried out, using as a tool the design of the logical model of performance management and its respective matrix of analysis and judgment with the criteria to be evaluated. In HS, 9 key-informants were interviewed, and documents were analyzed; the Canadian model was analyzed based on a paper written by Lahey (2010). Both policies analyzed by this study are convergent and have the necessary elements for performance management. While the evaluation featured largely in the Canadian model, monitoring was the driving force behind the institutionalization of assessment practices in HS. Some lessons learned in the Canadian model can be recommended, such as the development of an assessment plan, based on the strategic and decision-making level of HS.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.008

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.313 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCiência & Saúde ColetivaSame topicHealth, Nursing, Elderly CareFrench-language works237,207