MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046971437 · doi:10.1002/smr.527

Model checking timed properties of healthcare processes

2011· article· en· W2046971437 on OpenAlexaff
Keith Miller, Wendy MacCaull

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Software Maintenance and Evolution Research and Practice · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCorrectnessModel checkingWorkflowTemporal logicModalitiesProcess (computing)Software engineeringDistributed computingProgramming languageDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Healthcare workflows (careflows) involve complex, distributive processes with a high degree of variability. There are ubiquitous communication and enormous data and knowledge management requirements and the processes involve complex timing requirements, and are safety critical. Designing these processes and managing their performance is difficult and error‐prone. Using verification techniques such as model checking, which are mathematical methods of proving correctness, we can reduce errors by ensuring that process designs satisfy their specifications. We describe a prototype next generation multithreaded model checker to reason about processes in careflows, sensitive to patient preferences and the goals of the careteam using a timed temporal logic extended with modalities of beliefs, desires, and intentions. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.268
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.123 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Software Maintenance and Evolution Research and PracticeSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207