STRATEGY, STRUCTURE, PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND THE BALANCED SCORECARD IN THE CANADIAN HOSPITAL SYSTEM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper looks at the alignment of performance management systems and the organizational outcomes in the Canadian healthcare system. CEOs and clinical managers were surveyed for their perceptions of innovation, structure, performance management and organizational outcomes. The results indicate that the strategy/structure links operate as suggested by theory but that performance management systems may not be aligned to support the strategic objectives of the hospitals surveyed. As reported by the Canadian Institute of Health Information (CIHI), Canada’s spending on healthcare has increased from $102.5 billion (Cdn.) or $3,298 (Cdn.) per capita in 2001 to $130.3 billion (Cdn.) or $4,033 (Cdn.) per capita in 2004, an increase from 9.3 percent to 10.1 percent of Canada’s Gross Domestic Products (GDP). a,b Canada ranked fourth among G8 countries on healthcare spending (9.6 percent of GDP) after the United States, Germany, and France, whose healthcare expenditures are 14.6 percent, 10.9 percent, and 9.7 percent of GDP, respectively, in 2002. c From 2001 to 2004, the increases in total and per capita spending on healthcare are 7.2
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".