Financement des blocs opératoires en France et en Belgique, nomenclatures belge et française
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
Objectives: This study aims to compare the calculation of the grants made by the Belgian and French authorities to assume the financing of the nurses working in operating theatres. The simultaneous use of two nomenclatures (Belgian "INAMI" and French "CCAM") gave rise to questions about the possibilities of automatic transcribing between these two catalogues of medical acts. Method: All the interventions of the first quarter 2002 of a Belgian operating theatre were subject to a double encoding ("INAMI" and "CCAM" codes) according to operational protocols. The standard times used as part of the Belgian hospital financing were compared with the real times and with the operational times used as part of the French ICR system. Results: The standard times allocated in Belgium for the financing of nurses working in operating theatres are better correlated with real time than those employed within the framework of the ICR which were used during the study. The higher degree of accuracy of the CCAM makes the automatic transcribing of Belgian medical acts into French medical codes uncertain. Conclusion: This study substantiates the idea that it would be interesting to carry out a validation of ICR scales on the basis of real data.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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