MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405954162 · doi:10.31354/globalce.v6i4.197

Assessment and Capital Planning of a Regional Clinical Engineering Department Test Equipment Inventory

2024· article· en· W4405954162 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie-Ange Janvier, Andrew Ibey

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Clinical Engineering Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicQuality and Safety in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)Concept inventoryCapital equipmentEngine departmentOperations managementCapital (architecture)Engineering managementBusinessEngineeringOperations researchManufacturing engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Clinical Engineering Department at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) in Eastern Ontario, Canada has 9 distinct regional locations. CHEO’s regional program faces a challenge managing a fleet of 345 pieces of test equipment, mainly due to a lack of standardization. Distant regional sites share equipment, making coordination essential. This article presents three unique themes: (1) the introduction of technologist standard kits (e.g., multimeters, electrical safety analyzers, etc.) and site-based kits (e.g., ventilator, electrosurgical unit testers, etc.); (2) the optimization of kit allocation; and (3) a novel test equipment replacement strategy using Reliability, Frequency of Use, Life Expectancy, and Usage Classification criteria. This needs assessment for new equipment, and the replacement of aged equipment will ensure standardized and up-to-date test equipment that will, in turn, minimize equipment-related disruptions and improve technologist productivity.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.346 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Clinical Engineering JournalSame topicQuality and Safety in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207