Comparing the Health of Canadian Hospitals: Paying Attention to the Mix of Planned and Unplanned Admissions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian hospitals are being placed under increasing scrutiny for both performance and safety in some cases with a threat of financial consequences for failure. However, there are no accepted standards for comparing the relative context in which hospitals must operate; the unstated assumption being that all are starting from the same place and have equal opportunities for success. A "healthy hospital" should be able to meet the needs of its community with a mix of both planned (scheduled) and unplanned (emergency) services. The proportion of admissions that are planned has been falling in most Canadian hospitals and unplanned admissions have been rising, creating an unhealthy state with added costs. Canadian Institute for Health Information's databases give us a way to monitor these changes, but it is not routinely done. Making this information more available would help to identify hospitals most in need of support.
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 | 0.010 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".