MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110819585 · doi:10.1287/opre.1110.1026

A Simulation Optimization Approach to Long-Term Care Capacity Planning

2012· article· en· W2110819585 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

VenueOperations Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsTerm (time)Operations researchComputer scienceTime horizonService (business)Capacity planningEvent (particle physics)Discrete event simulationOperations managementMathematical optimizationBusinessEconomicsSimulationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a methodology for setting long-term care capacity levels over a multiyear planning horizon to achieve target wait time service levels. Our approach integrates demographic and survival analysis, discrete event simulation, and optimization. Based on this methodology, we developed a decision support system for use in practice. We illustrate this approach through two case studies: one for a regional health authority in British Columbia, Canada, and the other for a long-term care facility. We also compare our approach to the fixed ratio approach used in practice and the SIPP (stationary, independent, period by period) and MOL (modified offered load) approaches developed in the call center literature. Our results suggest that our approach is preferable. The fixed ratio approach lacks a rigorous foundation, and the SIPP and MOL approaches do not perform reliably mainly because of long service times. We conclude the paper with policy recommendations.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.393
GPT teacher head0.565
Teacher spread0.172 · 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