MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127952267 · doi:10.1007/s12553-020-00513-7

Application of big data in healthcare: examination of the military experience

2021· article· en· W3127952267 on OpenAlex
David P Berry

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

VenueHealth and Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsSault Area Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig dataParallelsHealth careHealthcare systemData scienceBusiness modelComputer scienceField (mathematics)Knowledge managementBusinessEngineeringPolitical scienceOperations managementMarketingData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Healthcare is fully embracing the promise of Big Data for improving performance and efficiency. Such a paradigm shift, however, brings many unforeseen impacts both positive and negative. Healthcare has largely looked at business models for inspiration to guide model development and practical implementation of Big Data. Business models, however, are limited in their application to healthcare as the two represent a complicated system versus a complex system respectively. Healthcare must, therefore, look toward other examples of complex systems to better gauge the potential impacts of Big Data. Military systems have many similarities with healthcare with a wealth of systems research, as well as practical field experience, from which healthcare can draw. The experience of the United States Military with Big Data during the Vietnam War is a case study with striking parallels to issues described in modern healthcare literature. Core principles can be extracted from this analysis that will need to be considered as healthcare seeks to integrate Big Data into its active operations.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.343 · 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