MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411656958 · doi:10.51847/jmx3v2wer8

10.51847/jMx3v2weR8

2000· article· en· W4411656958 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTime to knit · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer churn and segmentation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The users' satisfaction with hospital information system (HIS) entails the progression of this system in the hospitals that the development of hospital information system and use of it result in the presentation of qualified services by the presenters of hygiene and therapy services and the reduction of treatment costs which itself results in the patients' satisfaction.In present research, the level of users' satisfaction with hospital information system was studied Doctor Gholipur and Emam Ali Hospital of Boukan city.Research method: The present study is an applied descriptive-analytical research.The research population consisted of all the employees of department of hospital information system Doctor Gholipur and Emam Ali Hospital of Boukan city The tools of collecting data were the same as the ones of similar articles questionnaire.The descriptive and analytical statistics such as One-Way Analysis of Variance and Independent T-test were used for the purpose of analyzing data.Findings: According to the research findings, the level of users' satisfaction with hospital information system in the software dimension at the average level was (40/7%), in the dimension of quality of information and data at the average level (51/5%), and in the function dimension at the average level (46/3%).Conclusion: According to the accomplished research, it can be said that the level of users' satisfaction with quality of software of hospital information system in the dimensions of software, information and data quality and function has been at the average level.But, to reach a favorable degree, a special attention should be paid to the users' expectations.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.9540.954

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.171 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTime to knitSame topicCustomer churn and segmentationFrench-language works237,207