Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare facilities planning guides published by Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services (MSSS) do not provide information on the minimum number of medical equipment required on the care units to support the mission of clinical and medical services. MSSS Technology Planning System (Actif+ Reseau) provides a standard nomenclature of medical devices and an associated management framework: service life, and replacement value. The creation in April 2015 of Integrated Centers of Care and Social Services resulted in the rapid development of the regions in terms of upgrading the technological platforms. This results in a multitude of development projects that require functional and technical programs (FTPs). The list of medical equipment for an FTP is most often required in a very short term, or even a few days. Knowing that political decisions can lead to the realization of FTPs in even shorter timeframes, there is a risk of providing very partial information or an unsuitable technology; which is a risk factor for the budgeting of the project and, consequently, for the service to patients and the population. We propose here a first sketch of the distribution of equipment on a long-term care unit for patients with loss of autonomy. We hope that such an approach will lead to the creation by the MSSS of a Technology Planning Guide for health care units in Quebec healthcare facilities to standardize the level of equipment expected to ensure normal clinical and medical operations. The level of current equipment compared to the standardized target could be the basis for a technological performance indicator of health and social services institutions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.004 |
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".