MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972384515 · doi:10.1108/01443570210420395

An application of simulation to analyse resource sharing among health‐care organisations

2002· article· en· W1972384515 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Operations & Production Management · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentralisationPoolingService (business)Process (computing)Process managementShared resourceComputer scienceOperations managementBusinessField (mathematics)Risk analysis (engineering)Operations researchMarketingEconomicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the field of inventory management, it is a well‐known fact that centralisation, by sharing the risk between several entities, helps reduce the inventory required to provide a certain level of service. In practice, centralisation can be difficult to accomplish, because improvements to the system’s general performance may be achieved at the expense of some of the entities involved. This paper describes a simulation‐based methodology used to study the impacts of equipment pooling on a group of local community service centres (CLSCs) in the Montreal (Canada) region. In addition to quantifying the benefits of the pooling process, the approach allowed the stakeholders to reach an agreement by appraising various pooling scenarios and identifying the conditions that would help ensure fairness.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.376 · 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