MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040720495 · doi:10.3390/su7032730

Feasibility Study on an Evidence-Based Decision-Support System for Hospital Site Selection for an Aging Population

2015· article· en· W2040720495 on OpenAlexaff
Jung In Kim, Devini Senaratna, Jacobo Ruza, Calvin Kam, Sandy Y. M. Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Population ageingSite selectionDecision support systemHealth carePopulationContext (archaeology)Selection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceOperations researchOperations managementRisk analysis (engineering)Knowledge managementEnvironmental resource managementBusinessMedicineEngineeringData miningGeographyArtificial intelligenceEnvironmental healthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An aging population has significant, dynamic and complex healthcare needs. Meeting such needs in a sustainable manner requires the capability to prioritize and project multiple relevant criteria (e.g., dynamic population health, treatment preferences, resources, technological changes and location of facilities). Most current decision-making processes for urban hospital site selection rely on a combination of experience and statistical data, yet they lack robustness and trending capabilities. This leads to tremendous efficiency implications, as it is not uncommon for hospitals to have a lifespan of more than 100 years after they are built. Our research team has developed an evidence-based decision-support system, enhanced with a Geographic Information System (GIS), that has the potential to overcome these limitations. This paper presents a feasibility demonstration of our framework through a retrospective case study of hospital site selection in Dallas, Texas, demonstrating its positive value in providing a foundation for informed healthcare resource allocation in the context of an aging population.

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)0.005
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.159 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations41
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207