MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135158445

A New Building in the Hospital – What IT infrastructure should we recommend?

2019· article· en· W3135158445 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

VenueCMBES Proceedings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicQuality and Safety in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProject teamTeam buildingPhase (matter)BusinessEngineering managementOperations managementEngineeringPublic relationsComputer scienceKnowledge managementPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, On-tario is embarking in the renovation of the old buildings under the auspices of Project Horizon. The first phase of the project, consist in the development of a 22 story building to house all Patient Support personnel (PSC building). The second phase of the project is to demolish the old parts of the building and build a new Inpatient Care Centre (PCC). A Technology Group was formed to advice the Project Horizon team on the IT infrastruc-ture for the new PSC building. The challenge is to ensure that the IT infrastructure shall meet the needs of PSC’s tenants five year from now. In addition it needs to be flexible to support the needs over the next ten to twenty years. The Technology Group did a thorough research on the pros and cons for Structured Cable and GPON infrastructure. The paper describes the steps the team took to arrive to the final recommendation.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.351 · 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