MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307999489 · doi:10.3390/app122111146

A Review of the Scheduling Problem within Canadian Healthcare Centres

2022· review· en· W4307999489 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

VenueApplied Sciences · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScheduling and Timetabling Solutions
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNurse scheduling problemComputer scienceFair-share schedulingTwo-level schedulingDynamic priority schedulingScheduling (production processes)HeuristicsHealth careRate-monotonic schedulingOperations researchDistributed computingOperations managementEngineeringPolitical scienceOperating systemSchedule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the current literature regarding nurse scheduling and physician scheduling in Canada is reviewed. Staff scheduling is a vital aspect of healthcare which has immediate positive benefits when optimized. It is also a very complex optimization problem, often involving conflicts, human evaluation and time constraints. Four categories of problems are reviewed: staff scheduling, physician scheduling, operating room scheduling, and outpatient scheduling, each focusing on a different aspect of resource scheduling and involving unique considerations. Numerous different heuristics and algorithms have been implemented and tested in dozens of hospitals across Canada with nearly universal positive results. Despite the obvious benefits, continued implementations of the optimization software is uncommon.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0050.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.292
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.149 · 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