What's the Evidence on Evidence-Based Management?
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Theoretical or conceptualConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: none
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.862
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
Executive Overview In this article, we respond to recent calls for increased use of evidence-based management (EBMgt) by conducting a systematic review of the literature to answer the following questions: (1) Is there a substantial literature concerning the concept of evidence-based management? (2) What is the quality of evidence (where it exists) regarding evidence-based management? and (3) Is there evidence that employing evidence-based management will improve organizational performance? We applied an assessment rubric based on ranking systems developed in evidence-based medicine to evaluate the strength of evidence. We found that a large number of articles are published on the topic, but most provide encouragement to adopt EBMgt based on opinion and anecdotal information. We call for increased research to generate stronger evidence related to the impact of EBMgt on organizational performance.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Academy of Management Perspectives
- Topic
- Healthcare Quality and Management
- Field
- Health Professions
- Canadian institutions
- St. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- RubricEvidence-based managementQuality of evidencePsychologyQuality (philosophy)Knowledge managementOrganizational performanceRanking (information retrieval)Evidence-based practiceComputer sciencePolitical scienceMEDLINEMedicineEpistemologyAlternative medicineInformation retrieval
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes