Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter examines the paradigm that a health care system’s behavior may be examined using an agent simulation in order to illuminate its macroscopic characteristics and the effects of policy on its over all operation. Further, if the individual components are well articulated, the component behavior may be also studied. Health care systems in North America are generally regulated by various processes and mechanisms in order to provide orderly access to, and control of, the health care system. While all processes are designed to be fair and equitable, in many ways the system can not be examined or optimized because the risk, that making changes to the system might result in degraded services, is too great to permit making even simple changes. In this context we propose the development of a health care system model in which agents mimic the behavior of the key components of the system. These components interact and engage each other in a manor analogous to the operation of the health care system. The formulation of such a system is, by its very nature, an extremely complex process, and necessitates development in components or units. In this chapter we present the first components of such a system. Each component has unique and complex behaviors. These components will, with additional development, form the basic structure of a health care system model. Specifically we present results from the development of a diabetic patient agent model, the development of an agent-based neurosurgery ward bed allocation system, and the development of an agent-based scheduling system that may be used to allocate resources within the health care system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".