MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892182060 · doi:10.1287/serv.2018.0221

Women’s College Hospital Uses Operations Research to Create an Ambulatory Clinic Schedule

2018· article· en· W2892182060 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueService Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMitacsWomen's College Hospital
KeywordsScheduleAmbulatoryComputer scienceOperations researchOperations managementMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Notes. Women’s College Hospital (WCH) in Toronto, Canada offers roughly 300 outpatient clinics every week. In this article, the authors describe a project started in April 2011 with WCH to design a new schedule for their clinics to accommodate a move to a new hospital building, which was completed in May 2013. They developed an integer programming model to optimize the assignment of clinics to timeslots and locations, based on the desire to minimize changes from the historical schedule. In cooperation with senior leadership of WCH, the authors tested multiple scenarios that explored changes to space utilization policies at WCH and ultimately generated a new clinic schedule, which WCH implemented in May 2013. In this paper the authors highlight the value the work has created for WCH and present lessons learned in development of the model and through collaboration with the WCH team.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.005

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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.319 · 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