Preliminary Findings on ABC Adoption in Canadian Hospitals: Reasons for Low Rates of Adoption
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
Activity based costing (ABC) can be traced to the years before the Second World War, but its popularity in recent years has been widespread following the Johnson and Kaplan (1987) article. Both teaching and practice have been impacted by the extensive research and literature in this area. However, it is evident that there has not yet been widespread successful implementation of ABC. Adoption rates have been lower than expected given the potential advantages of using ABC suggested by leading academics and professional organisations around the world. We found through initial surveys that there are low rates of adoption of ABC in hospitals in Ontario. Since hospitals are under severe budgetary pressures, have a high variety and complexity of cases and a high level of shared resources, we would expect more adoption of ABC. We use the approach suggested by Scapens (1990) to ascertain the determinants of this low level of adoption. Our studies focus on four hospitals in Ontario, Canada, using surveys and interviews. Our preliminary findings are that the application of social theory, as suggested by Scapens (1990), provides useful explanations for the low ABC adoption rates in hospital care in 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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