MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3148318941

Understanding self-organized regularities in healthcare services based on autonomy oriented modeling

2015· article· en· W3148318941 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Li TaoJiming Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyService (business)Healthcare serviceHealth careAffect (linguistics)Computer sciencePsychologyBusinessPolitical scienceMarketingCommunication
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Self-organized regularities in terms of patient arrivals and wait times have been discovered in real-world healthcare services. What remains to be a challenge is how to characterize those regularities by taking into account the underlying patients' or hospitals' behaviors with respect to various impact factors. This paper presents a case study to address such a challenge. Specifically, it models and sim- ulates the cardiac surgery services in Ontario, Canada, based on the methodology of Autonomy-Oriented Com- puting (AOC). The developed AOC-based cardiac surgery service model (AOC-CSS model) pays a special attention to how individuals' (e.g., patients and hospitals) behaviors and interactions with respect to some key factors (i.e., geographic accessibility to services, hospital resourceful- ness, and wait times) affect the dynamics and relevant patterns of patient arrivals and wait times. By experi- menting with the AOC-CSS model, we observe that certain regularities in patient arrivals and wait times emerge from the simulation, which are similar to those discovered from the real world. It reveals that patients' hospital-selection behaviors, hospitals' service-adjustment behaviors, and

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.256
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling OptimizationFrench-language works237,207