Developing guidelines for allocating catheterization laboratory resources: lessons from an Ontario Consensus Panel. Consensus Panel on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Services in Ontario and the Steering Committee of the Cardiac Care Network of Ontario.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In March 1997, the Ontario Ministry of Health asked the Cardiac Care Network of Ontario (CCN) to develop guidelines for allocating cardiac catheterization laboratory resources. A consensus panel of providers and planners used findings from the literature and expert opinion to recommend guidelines for the operation of cardiac catheterization laboratories and criteria to be considered when allocating additional cardiac catheterization laboratory resources. This article summarizes the consensus panel's major findings that may be of value to other jurisdictions, including need identification, clinical practice, system issues, location criteria and cost considerations. The article reflects the advice given to the Ontario Ministry of Health by the CCN and is not an official position paper of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society.
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 | 0.151 | 0.163 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".