MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1584680332

Regulations and Patient Management Software

2010· article· en· W1584680332 on OpenAlexaffabout
James Williams, Jens H. Weber-Jahnke

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical softwareDomain (mathematical analysis)SoftwareMedical deviceSoftware systemComputer scienceSoftware engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Software constructionEngineeringBusinessOperating system
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the use of medical device regimes to regulate electronic health record systems. Using Canada as our motivating example, we analyze whether a regulatory framework designed around hardware devices is suitable for use in the software domain. After presenting a thorough summary of the conceptual framework of medical device law, we consider the gaps and issues that arise when considering software systems. Our claim is that medical device regimes are not a suitable tool for the regulation of software, given the unique nature of software systems as engineering artifacts.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.240 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207