MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

L’approche chaîne d’approvisionnement pour organiser un service d’approvisionnement hospitalier

2004· article· fr· W41715837 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueLogistique & Management · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Supply Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceGeographyForestryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractCet article présente les avantages d’une approche axée sur la coordination des activités d’achat et de distribution pour améliorer la logistique d’un service d’approvisionnement hospitalier. Face aux modèles d’inventaire multi-échelons, l’approche chaîne d’approvisionnement met l’accent sur la planification des activités : quand acheter un produit ? quand approvisionner une unité de soins ? et quels produits sont acheminés via le magasin central et lesquels directement aux unités de soins ? Cette stratégie prometteuse est basée sur la confection d’horaires qui coordonnent et équilibrent les activités tout au long du cycle d’approvisionnement. Cet article aborde les trois principales activités de la logistique hospitalière (les achats, la gestion des stocks et la distribution) sous un angle intégrateur. Après avoir brièvement présenté l’approche chaîne d’approvisionnement pour organiser la logistique hospitalière, nous présentons le cas du service d’approvisionnement d’un grand hospital de la région de Montréal, Canada.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.011

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.213 · 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