MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235627963 · doi:10.1109/wsc.2010.5678932

Use of simulation in support of analysis and improvement of blood collection process

2010· article· en· W4235627963 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

VenueProceedings of the 2010 Winter Simulation Conference · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData collectionBlood collectionProcess (computing)Computer scienceAnalytic hierarchy processOrder (exchange)Operations researchRisk analysis (engineering)Process managementSystems engineeringEngineeringMedicineMedical emergencyOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper deals with efforts aiming to improve processes associated with the blood specimen order and collection process in one of the Canada's largest and most diverse health care facilities. The analytical specimen testing is defined to have five sub-systems that synergize to execute the order, collection, transportation, analysis and result reporting of blood-based analytic laboratory tests. In the project current processes were defined in accordance to the standard operating procedures and other hospitals techniques and benchmarked to other known blood collection and analysis systems. The recommendations and implementation strategy to address the challenges associated with the errors and delays in the blood collection system in the emergency department at Sunnybrook were developed and prioritized using an analytical hierarchy process.

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)0.002
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 score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.303 · 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