Case studies in organizational healthcare ethics: Healthcare foundations, business development, and the commercialization of research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organizational ethics is a relatively new concept in healthcare for which most literature is either commentary or philosophical analysis. The purpose of this research is to contribute an empirical evidence base from which a conceptual framework for evaluating and improving organizational effectiveness can be developed. Three areas of organizational ethics in healthcare were investigated across 13 organizations using qualitative case study methods. In each area the aim was to determine what the organizational ethics issues were, describe the strategies used to address these issues, and learn how effective these strategies were. The three areas examined are: (1) the ethics of fundraising and hospital foundations; (2) business development; and (3) commercialization of research. Descriptions of the three issues are useful guides to recognizing organizational ethics issues where they may have been previously undetected, and determining what perceptions of good practices are for dealing with them.
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 | 0.063 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| 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".