MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783292131 · doi:10.5555/3242181.3242205

Five decades of healthcare simulation

2017· article· en· W2783292131 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

VenueWinter Simulation Conference · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careTheme (computing)DozenComputer scienceData scienceEngineering ethicsPublic relationsOperations researchEngineeringWorld Wide WebPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we have not attempted to produce any kind of systematic review of simulation in healthcare to compete with the dozen (at least) excellent and comprehensive survey papers on this topic that already exist. We begin with a glance back at the early days of Wintersim, but then proceed, in line with the theme of this special track, to reflect on general developments in healthcare simulation over the years from our own personal perspectives. We include some memories and reflections by several pioneers in this area, both academics and healthcare practitioners, on both sides of the Atlantic. We also asked four current simulation modelers, who all specialize in healthcare applications but from very diverse perspectives, to reflect on their experiences. We endeavor to identify some common or recurring themes across the years, and end with a glimpse into the future.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.323 · 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