Dual vs. Single Monitor in a Canadian Hospital Archiving Department: A study of Efficiency and Satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This was a prospective study that compared, for each archivist, the time required to process records depending on whether a single or a dual monitor was used. We collected data for each archivist during her use of the single monitor for 40 hours and during her use of the dual monitor for 20 hours. During the experimental periods, archivists did not perform other related duties, so we were able to measure the real-time processing of records. To control for the type of records and their impact on the process time required, we categorized the major and minor cases based on whether acute care or day surgery was involved. Overall results show that 1, 234 records were processed using a single monitor and 647 records using a dual monitor. The time required to process a record was significantly higher (p-value = 0.071) with a single monitor compared to a dual monitor (19.83 vs. 18.73 minutes). However, the percentage of major cases was significantly higher (p-value = 0.000) in the single monitor group compared to the dual monitor group (78 vs. 69 percent). As a consequence, we needed to adjust our results, which reduced the difference in time required to process a record between the two systems from 1.1 to 0.61 minutes. Thus, the net real-time difference was only 37 seconds in favor of the dual monitor system. This represented a time savings of 3.1% and generated a net cost savings of 7896 Canadian dollars for each workstation that devoted 35 hours per week to the processing of records, over an amortization period of five years. Finally, satisfaction questionnaires responses indicated a high level of satisfaction and support for the dual-monitor system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".