MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029109512 · doi:10.1007/s10729-013-9241-3

Estimating the waiting time of multi-priority emergency patients with downstream blocking

2013· article· en· W2029109512 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Care Management Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaWilfrid Laurier UniversityMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistère du Développement Économique, de l’Innovation et de l’Exportation
KeywordsQueueing theoryQueueDownstream (manufacturing)Computer scienceHealth informaticsBlocking (statistics)Emergency departmentUpstream (networking)Flow (mathematics)MedicineComputer networkOperations managementPublic healthMathematicsEngineeringNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To characterize the coupling effect between patient flow to access the emergency department (ED) and that to access the inpatient unit (IU), we develop a model with two connected queues: one upstream queue for the patient flow to access the ED and one downstream queue for the patient flow to access the IU. Building on this patient flow model, we employ queueing theory to estimate the average waiting time across patients. Using priority specific wait time targets, we further estimate the necessary number of ED and IU resources. Finally, we investigate how an alternative way of accessing ED (Fast Track) impacts the average waiting time of patients as well as the necessary number of ED/IU resources. This model as well as the analysis on patient flow can help the designer or manager of a hospital make decisions on the allocation of ED/IU resources in a hospital.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.285 · 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