MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015416155 · doi:10.1057/jors.2009.150

An evaluation of the applicability of system dynamics to patient flow modelling

2009· article· en· W2015416155 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

VenueJournal of the Operational Research Society · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscrete event simulationPerspective (graphical)Project managementSystem dynamicsOperations researchPurchasingComputer scienceOperations managementResource (disambiguation)Health careManagement scienceProcess managementSimulationBusinessSystems engineeringEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objective of this research is to determine whether Systems Dynamics (SD) is a beneficial method for modelling hospital patient flow from a strategic planning perspective. While discrete event simulation has frequently been used as a tool for analysing and improving patient flow in health care settings, the desire to assess and understand patient flow and resource demand from a more strategic, and therefore aggregate, perspective led to the use of SD. To evaluate the suitability of such an approach, a model was developed in collaboration with the General Campus at The Ottawa Hospital with particular attention paid to the delays experienced by patients in the emergency department. The modelling techniques used, model validation and scenarios tested with the model are discussed, accompanied by comments regarding the appropriateness of SD for such a model.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.303 · 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