MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165342801 · doi:10.12927/hcq..17673

Identifying and Preventing Technology-Induced Error Using Simulations: Application of Usability Engineering Techniques

2005· article· en· W2165342801 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityComputer scienceHealth careSet (abstract data type)Best practiceWork (physics)Risk analysis (engineering)Usability engineeringData scienceManagement scienceSystems engineeringHuman–computer interactionEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we describe a framework for the analysis of technology-induced errors, extending approaches from the emerging area of usability engineering. The approach involves collection of a rich set of data consisting of audio and video recordings of interactions of healthcare workers with health information systems under simulated conditions. The application of the approach is discussed, along with methodological considerations and issues in conducting such studies. The steps involved in carrying out such studies are described along with a discussion of our current work. It is argued that health care information systems will need to undergo more rigorous evaluation under simulated conditions in order to detect and prevent technology-induced errors before they are deployed in real healthcare settings.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.379 · 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