MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317977815 · doi:10.1097/jce.0000000000000010

The Dividends of an Effective Clinical Technology Management Program

2013· article· en· W2317977815 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kim Greenwood, Marie-Ange Janvier, Y. Rachel Zhang, Gaëtanne Heggie, Marjan Yazdanpanah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicQuality and Safety in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical engineeringProcurementMedical equipmentBusinessHealth careOperations managementCapital equipmentFunction (biology)MedicineMarketingEngineeringNursingIndustrial organizationEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief The growth of clinical engineering (CE) departments in the last 20 years has stalled within healthcare facilities despite the fact that the inventory of medical devices within all facilities has grown substantially during this interval. In many organizations, CE’s role is only to maintain the organization’s clinical equipment. The developmental strategy used by CE at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario has reversed this trend at this facility. This was accomplished by taking on the role of the health technology manager for the institution. Clinical engineering has, since 2001, coordinated the long-range planning function for capital equipment at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario. Since taking on this role, CE has also been assigned the management of annual corporate capital equipment procurement process and coordination of the ongoing implementation of new clinical equipment. The growth of clinical engineering (CE) departments in the last 20 years has stalled within healthcare facilities despite the fact that the inventory of medical devices within all facilities has grown substantially during this interval. In many organizations, CE’s role is only to maintain the organization’s clinical equipment.

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.014
Scholarly communication0.0260.020
Open science0.0030.020
Research integrity0.0110.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.006

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.468 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical EngineeringSame topicQuality and Safety in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207