MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366384055 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.27.001

Current Evaluation Practices Involving Resource Allocation Processes in Canadian Healthcare Organizations: A Survey of Senior Managers

2012· article· en· W4366384055 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Neale Smith, Craig Mitton, Cam Donaldson, Stirling Bryan, Stuart Peacock

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlUniversity of British ColumbiaCentre for Advancing Health Outcomes
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResource allocationFunction (biology)Health careResource (disambiguation)BusinessProcess (computing)Senior managementKey (lock)Knowledge managementSurvey data collectionResource management (computing)Healthcare systemProcess managementPublic relationsManagementComputer sciencePolitical scienceEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Resource allocation is a key function of senior leadership teams within healthcare organizations. Academic support of this function has traditionally focused on constructing tools to make decisions more formalized, and much less attention has been paid to understanding resource allocation as a management process. In particular, evaluation has been a missing aspect. The authors conducted a pan-Canadian survey of senior managers within the healthcare system. This survey included questions related to formal evaluation of their resource allocation processes and outcomes. We use these data to shed some light upon the state of priority-setting practice in Canada at the present time.

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)0.090
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0900.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.528
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.025 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Program EvaluationSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207