MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2411495284 · doi:10.3233/978-1-58603-979-0-17

Process Data: a Means to Measure Operational Performance and Implement Advanced Analytical Models

2009· article· en· W2411495284 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent S. Chow, John French, Martin L. Puterman, Scott Tyldesley

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)Computer scienceProcess (computing)Data scienceData miningProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the case of an ambulatory clinic in which an operational review was conducted to identify opportunities for efficiency in appointment scheduling and capacity allocation. We required process data to compare that which was planned to that which actually happened and to develop advanced analytical models. Similar to other health care studies, these data proved to be limited or non-existent. Consequently we had to conduct a time-consuming collection of operational metrics. We make recommendations for the perpetual collection of process data for modeling and simulation.

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)0.002
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 score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling OptimizationFrench-language works237,207