Strategies for Appointment Policy Design with Patient Unpunctuality
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Appointment policy design is complicated by patients who arrive earlier or later than their scheduled appointment time. This article considers the design of scheduling rules in the presence of patient unpunctuality and how they are impacted by various environmental factors. A simulation optimization framework is used to determine how to improve performance by adjusting the schedule of appointments. Prior studies (that did not include patient unpunctuality) have found that a scheduling policy with relatively consistent appointment interval lengths in the form of a dome or plateau dome rule to perform well in a variety of clinic environments. These rules still perform reasonably well here, but it is shown that a combination of variable‐length intervals and block scheduling are better at mitigating the effects of patient unpunctuality. In addition, performance improves if the use of this policy increases toward the end of the scheduling session. Survey and observational data collected at multiple outpatient clinics are used to add realism to the input parameters and develop practical guidelines for appointment policy decision making.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it