Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Software Engineering in Health Care
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An Institute of Medicine report published in 2012 concluded that healthcare has become too complex and costly to continue on its present trajectory, and that digital technologies will be a key aspect of healthcare delivery [1]. While such reports provide a valuable research agenda for how the healthcare system needs to function, a fundamental issue is it is not designed to provide the level of care outlined in the reports. For our healthcare system to function at a high level it needs to undergo a substantial transformation, of which software engineering and the SEHC community will play a critical role. The current healthcare delivery paradigm is one of connectivity and information exchange. Software engineering will be a crucial enabling technology for healthcare transformation because our ability to provide integrated healthcare delivery will only be as good as our ability to engineer the underlying software that enables connectivity. In that sense, our ability to deliver efficient, safe and evidence based healthcare services will depend greatly on software engineering and the innovative research of the SEHC community.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it