MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001993275 · doi:10.1109/cbms.2012.6266322

Modeling clinical workflows using business process modeling notation

2012· article· en· W2001993275 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness Process Model and NotationComputer scienceXPDLOntologyWorkflowBusiness processBusiness process modelingUpper ontologyBusiness process managementWorkflow Management CoalitionOntology-based data integrationSoftware engineeringProcess ontologyNotationProcess (computing)Workflow engineDatabaseProgramming languageWork in processEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a semantic interoperability framework to represent Clinical Pathways (CP) as business process workflows represented using Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN). We take a knowledge management approach whereby we represent CP as a CP ontology. To represent a CP as a process workflow we have developed a high-level semantic mapping between the CP ontology and the BPMN ontology. The ontology mapping allows the alignment of semantic relations between two ontologies and thus ensures that a clinical process defined in the CP ontology is mapped to a standard BPMN workflow element.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207