Grouping Patient Data Based On Work And Place Of Residence On Perceived Complaints
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every day the Sawit Seberang Health Center serves many patients with various kinds of disease complaints from various areas in Sawit Seberang District. The number of patients can even reach tens of people in one day resulting in a large number of patient visit data. Limited information regarding the spread of diseases that are often suffered by patients in several areas at the Sawit Seberang Health Center has resulted in less optimal policy action, anticipation of treatment and prevention of disease in the community. To find information about grouping patient data based on work and place of residence for perceived complaints, a large or large data mining technique is needed, namely data mining techniques using the clustering method. The purpose of this study is to process and cluster patient data based on work, place of residence and complaints that are felt using the Clustering method, to analyze the results of applying data mining using K-Means Clustering in grouping patient data based on work, place of residence and complaints that are felt and find out the results of the settlement grouping patient data based on work and place of residence on perceived complaints using clustering and data mining methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it