MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2396805016

Adoption paths for barcode and RFID technologies in the medication process: full implementation, hybridization or migration

2011· article· en· W2396805016 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

VenueInternational Conference on Communications · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBarcodeProcess (computing)Computer scienceQuality (philosophy)Adverse effectIncident reportMedical emergencyComputer securityMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medication errors are considered as the most frequent type of adverse events occurring in hospitals. Technology, such as barcode and RFID, can lower the frequency of adverse medication events by improving quality and communication, by tracking patients and medication doses, by preventing errors, by facilitating a more rapid response after the incidence of an error, and by documenting and analyzing adverse events. This paper explores four different adoption paths for improving the medication process of an emergency department, namely full barcode implementation, full RFID implementation, hybridization, or migration. More specifically, it attempts to assess if each of these adoption paths is better suited to support the activities related to the stages of the medication process.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.296
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.224 · 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