MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2519427739 · doi:10.1177/1541931213601059

Dispatch Decision Making in an Air Medical Transport System

2016· article· en· W2519427739 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Wayne C.W. Giang, Lavinia Hui, Birsen Donmez, Mahvareh Ahghari, Russell D. MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsOperations researchPlan (archaeology)Computer scienceDecision support systemResource (disambiguation)EstimationTransport engineeringEngineeringSystems engineeringData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Air medical transport relies on effective dispatching of air and land vehicles to provide the fastest and best care possible for patient transfers. These difficult dispatch decisions are characterized by high time pressure, uncertainty, and the dynamic and complex environment of medical transportation. This paper describes a preliminary study of the decision making processes that occur during dispatch decisions at Ornge, the air medical transportation system in Ontario, Canada. We drew upon the Critical Decision Method and the structured data analysis approach to understand the major decision points faced by Ornge’s dispatchers, and the cues and sources of information attended to in those situations. We found that the decision points deal with three main goals: maintain situation awareness, match resource to transfer, and plan logistics of transfer. Furthermore, we found that time estimation might play an important role in helping dispatchers coordinate within the dispatch team and with their external partners. These findings may help improve the design of computer aided dispatch software to better support the goals of the dispatchers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling OptimizationFrench-language works237,207