Optimal Sequencing of Unpunctual Patients in High‐Service‐Level Clinics
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
Even though patients often arrive early and out of turn for scheduled appointments in outpatient clinics, no research has been undertaken to establish whether an available provider should see an early patient right away (preempt) or wait for the patient scheduled next. This problem, which we call the “Wait‐Preempt Dilemma,” is particularly relevant for “high‐service‐level” clinics (such as psychotherapy, chiropractic, acupuncture), where preempting may cause the missing patient to wait for an excessively long time, should she show up soon. Typically, the dilemma is resolved by preemption, where the provider starts serving the patient who has already arrived to avoid staying idle. By contrast, we analytically determine the time intervals where it is optimal to preempt and those where it is optimal to wait, and find that in some cases the provider should in fact stay idle, even in the presence of waiting patients. Our results suggest that the proposed analytical method outperforms the always‐preempt policy in clinics that do not overbook and have service times longer than 30 minutes. In these cases, the analytical method dramatically reduces patient waiting times at the cost of a modest increase in overtime. By contrast, in clinics that overbook or have short service times, the two policies perform similarly, and hence the always‐preempt policy is preferable due to its simplicity. A software application is provided that clinics can readily use to solve the wait‐preempt dilemma.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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