Healthcare Organizations and Enterprise Architecture: A Case Study in Canada
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper focuses on exploring the perceptions of stakeholders (medical doctors, nurses, pharmacists, IT staff and other employees) in healthcare organizations in Canada on how they developed Enterprise Architecture (EA) to improve managerial decision making and align business activities and Information Technology (IT). Both quantitative and qualitative methods were adopted for this research. A total of 120 questionnaires were sent out but only 72 responses were received. Participants included industry professionals involved in implementing information systems (IS) within healthcare organizations. Data was collected physically and through emails. Also 3 subject matter experts (experts) were interviewed for the study. These experts each have over ten years’ experience in EA practice and are doctorate degree holders (PhDs). The results of the study showed that stakeholders see the potential for EA to be a tool for planning IT/IS projects, breaking down organizational silos, creating digital transformation, and proactively responding to disruptive forces. They do not see EA as the necessary tool for integrating IT solutions.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it