MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387364736 · doi:10.59934/jaiea.v3i1.268

Grouping Patient Data Based On Work And Place Of Residence On Perceived Complaints

2023· article· en· W4387364736 on OpenAlexaff
Jhody Alkhalis Sembiring, Yani Maulita, Suci Ramadani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence and Engineering Applications (JAIEA) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining and Machine Learning Applications
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisResidenceWork (physics)Anticipation (artificial intelligence)Cluster (spacecraft)MedicineData miningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Artificial Intelligence and Engineering Applications (JAIEA)Same topicData Mining and Machine Learning ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207