MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377091609 · doi:10.3233/shti230294

Modelling Information Needs and Sources in a COVID-19 Designated Hospital

2023· article· en· W4377091609 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth M. Borycki, André Kushniruk, Henry Oluka, Simon Minshall, Kenrick Cato, Yalini Senathirajah, David R. Kaufman

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicData-Driven Disease Surveillance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth informaticsOutbreakCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Infectious disease (medical specialty)Public healthStakeholderInformation needsHealth careInformaticsInformation systemMedicineDiseaseKnowledge managementNursingPublic relationsComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPathologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

COVID-19 remains an important focus of study in the field of public health informatics. COVID-19 designated hospitals have played an important role in the management of patients affected by the disease. In this paper we describe our modelling of the needs and sources of information for infectious disease practitioners and hospital administrators used to manage a COVID-19 outbreak. Infectious disease practitioner and hospital administrator stakeholders were interviewed to learn about their information needs and where they obtained their information. Stakeholder interview data were transcribed and coded to extract use case information. The findings indicate that participants used many and varied sources of information in the management of COVID-19. The use of multiple, differing sources of data led to considerable effort. In modelling participants' activities, we identified potential subsystems that could be used as a basis for developing an information system specific to the public health needs of hospitals providing care to COVID-19 patients.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicData-Driven Disease SurveillanceFrench-language works237,207