MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552015230 · doi:10.1111/itor.12353

Waiting‐time estimation in walk‐in clinics

2016· article· en· W2552015230 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Transactions in Operational Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEstimationComputer scienceService (business)Waiting listLine (geometry)Simple (philosophy)Operations researchMedicineBusinessMathematicsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Medical assistance is offered by walk‐in clinics (WC). These clinics must keep track of patients’ turn in line. Some private companies offer an extra follow‐up service to WC patients, which notifies them when their consultation approaches, so patients can use their free time elsewhere than in the waiting room. This paper aims to develop an applied forecasting approach for consultation service time estimation and waiting‐time estimation. A model based on particle filters and mixture models helps to estimate the waiting time for each consultation, using historical and new incoming data from patient consultations. The system considers two types of patients, namely, regular and follow‐up. Our method gives an estimate of the waiting time for consultation better than simple statistics.

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.199
GPT teacher head0.566
Teacher spread0.367 · 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