MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790841210 · doi:10.1080/16258312.2018.1433438

Where to locate medical supplies in nursing units: An exploratory study

2018· article· en· W2790841210 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSupply Chain Forum an International Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPublic Procurement and Policy
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityContext (archaeology)Exploratory researchUnit (ring theory)BusinessInventory managementDecentralizationNursingOperations managementFocus (optics)Nursing careMedicineProcess managementPsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nursing unit inventory management is often cited as the top irritant that limits nurses’ ability to provide care at bedside. Our research focus is to determine whether the inventory location in the nursing units interferes with the performance of the replenishment system. The literature review suggests that a decentralization of nursing unit storage areas will require additional logistics resources to manage all of these storage points. Our case studies of four Canadian hospitals tend to demonstrate that decentralized locations do not necessarily lead to a decrease in productivity for logistics staff. Furthermore, although our research focuses on the inventory location in nursing units, it is difficult to isolate the impact of this aspect in the context of the entire replenishment system. For example, reorder frequency also has an impact on productivity. Further research could focus on these topics.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.284 · 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