MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1895851074 · doi:10.2345/i0899-8205-40-5-393.1

The Tao of Managing Recalls and Safety Alerts

2006· article· en· W1895851074 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Instrumentation & Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicQuality and Safety in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk analysis (engineering)Variety (cybernetics)PreparednessRisk managementEmergency managementPatient safetySystem safetyComputer scienceComputer securityEngineeringBusinessReliability engineeringHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical engineering staff deal with a variety of risk management issues on a daily basis. These issues range from infection control, standards compliance, recalls and safety alerts, patient safety, and incident investigations all the way up to disaster preparedness. Managing device recalls and safety alerts entails several functions, such as processing, risk assessment, distribution, rectification, tracking, and monitoring. This paper discusses the basic elements of an effective recalls and safety alerts management system, thus offering the way to an effective system. The system enabling inputs, activities, and desired outcomes are discussed. The paper also presents our experience in implementing such a system and future possibilities.

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.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.362 · 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