MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2700412917 · doi:10.4236/ojem.2017.52008

How to Approach Real Mathematical Modeling in Surge Capacity: Clinical Review

2017· article· en· W2700412917 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Journal of Emergency Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurge CapacityPreparednessFlexibility (engineering)SurgeComputer scienceProcess (computing)Outcome (game theory)RealmOperations researchEmergency managementField (mathematics)Management scienceEngineeringMedicinePolitical scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Science of surge is one of most important topics in the realm of disaster preparedness. Since 2006, after Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) Consensus Conference, few articles with quantitative data address decision making in surge capacity. The aim of this article is looking forward to the facts about mathematical modeling and proposes real modeling in decision making to have better outcome. Methods: Literature Research was performed on database for the last ten years (2007-2017). Articles with mathematical modeling were separated and classified based on the usage of them in the field. Results: All current mathematical studies compared based on pre-hospital and hospital setting and flexibility in change of global level of care in time. Integrated model of sigmoid curve and HASC (Hospital Acute Care Surge Capacity) with name B-H integrated modeling in two-hour interval proposed. Conclusion: This study shows dynamic process of disaster planning based on outcome and reality. The proposed model makes surge capacity more predictable and adjustable.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.673
GPT teacher head0.598
Teacher spread0.075 · 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