MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966978559 · doi:10.1186/1478-4491-7-42

Narrowing the gap between eye care needs and service provision: a model to dynamically regulate the flow of personnel through a multiple entry and exit training programme

2009· article· en· W1966978559 on OpenAlexaff
Keith Masnick

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Resources for Health · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsKensington Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Variety (cybernetics)StakeholderHealth administrationWorkforceField (mathematics)Operations researchService (business)Risk analysis (engineering)WorkflowHealth careProcess managementManagement scienceBusinessEconomicsArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this paper is to present a complex yet transparent, computable model to simulate the regulation of the flow of personnel through a previously described multiple-entry, multiple-exit eye care training scheme linked to the health workforce. This methodology should be a useful tool for the planner; it can address changes and feedbacks over time and be sensitive to any unexpected consequences of the interactions. The same model template can be applied to calculate the finances associated with the personnel flow. PRESENTATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS: The worth of any model or set of concepts of human resources for health is considerably enhanced by actual field application. However, implementation involves the selection of one set of parameters and a large, long-term commitment of resources. A far less expensive and time-consuming, yet still effective, method of testing assumptions and ideas would be to simulate their application using a variety of possible inputs, structural configurations and/or desired outcomes. To that end, this paper presents a computable, dynamic model of personnel flows within a health system. TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS: Some testing of the model has been demonstrated in a previous paper. However, the value of the model is that all stakeholders can enter their own data and parameter assumptions and readily review the outcomes. IMPLICATIONS OF THE HYPOTHESIS: The complex yet easy-to-use model presented in this paper opens the debate on current and future policy to any stakeholder. A very wide range of scenarios can be considered and a selected option can be monitored and changed dynamically over time.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 studies0.0040.000
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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.272 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Resources for HealthSame topicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling OptimizationFrench-language works237,207