MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206214030 · doi:10.3233/shti210954

A Safety Maturity Model for Technology-Induced Errors

2022· book-chapter· en· W4206214030 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsMichael Smith Health Research BCUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaturity (psychological)Capability Maturity ModelService Integration Maturity ModelInformation technologyWork (physics)LeanCMMI

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we describe a review of the literature and the development of an initial maturity model for the research literature in the area of technology-induced errors and health technology safety. The capability maturity model provides a way forward for organizations to formalize their health technology safety processes and also compare their efforts in this area to other organizations to support organizational learning. The application of maturity models to technology-induced error is described.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207