MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2401699445 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2013.19492

Hospital admissions via the emergency department: implications for planning and patient flow.

2008· article· en· W2401699445 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heather Dawson, Jaya Weerasooriya, Greg Webster

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Health Information
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentMedicineEmergency medicineMedical emergencyPopulation healthHealth informationMedical recordPopulationHealth careFamily medicineNursingEnvironmental healthSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In summary, there are important differences among patients admitted via the ED versus those admitted via other means in terms of both utilization and patient characteristics. When compared with patients admitted via other means, patients admitted via the ED are more likely to fall into the medical patient group, to be older and to have more complex and more diseases or health conditions. Medical patients admitted via the ED are more likely to become ALC patients than are other types of patients. As hospitals, health regions and policy makers focus on improving patient flow through Canada's EDs, it is important to consider the volume and characteristics of the patient population admitted via the ED.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations23
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207