MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1911782486 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3784

ANALYSIS OF SURGICAL PATIENT FLOW AT WINNIPEG HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE

2011· article· en· W1911782486 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Yee Yong Tan, Tamer Mekkawy, Qiyuan Peng, Ben Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOperations Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsWinnipeg Regional Health AuthorityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Health careOperations managementProcess (computing)MedicineMedical emergencyOperations researchComputer scienceEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Health Sciences Centre (HSC) in Winnipeg is the major trauma centre serving the entire province of Manitoba, Northwestern Ontario, and Nunavut. Therefore, it has to handle a high volume of both elective and emergent surgical patients. Because the facility always strives to provide quality care in a fast and effective manner, it initiated a research project to analyze its surgical patient flow and generate ideas on how it could be redesigned to improve the systems performance. After a year of careful analysis, all of the problems identified were grouped into six major categories, showcasing how various departments are affected by each problem. Based on this analysis, the true impact of each problem in the surgical patient flow process can be understood. Steps can now be taken to identify which problems need to be addressed, what changes should be made, and how this will benefit the entire system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicOperations Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207