MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6920821599 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12198669

Additional file 1 of Temporal trends in emergency department volumes and crowding metrics in a western Canadian province: a population-based, administrative data study

2020· article· en· W6920821599 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterquartile rangeEmergency departmentPercentileMedianCrowdingRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additional file 1: eTable S1. Percentages of presentations that exceed recommendations for all years and by fiscal year. eTable S2. Percentages of presentations that exceed recommendations by ED category for all years and by fiscal year. eFigure S1. Median and interquartile range (25th percentile, 75th percentile) hourly, facility-specific median physician initial assessment (PIA) times by years and by ED category. eFigure S2. Percent of presentations from all ED that exceeded the CAEP recommendations for medians for physician initial assessment (PIA), length of stay (LOS) for discharges with CTAS 1/2/3, LOS for discharges with CTAS 4/5, and LOS for admissions by ED category and by fiscal year (darkest grey 2010/2011, lightest grey 2014/2015). eFigure S3. Percent of presentations from all ED that exceeded the CAEP recommendations for 90th percentile for physician initial assessment (PIA), length of stay (LOS) for discharges with CTAS 1/2/3, LOS for discharges with CTAS 4/5, and LOS for admissions by ED category and by fiscal year (darkest grey 2010/2011, lightest grey 2014/2015). eFigure S4. Median and interquartile range (25th percentile, 75th percentile) for hourly, facility-specific median length of stay (LOS) for discharges by years and by ED category. eFigure S5. Median and interquartile range (25th percentile, 75th percentile) for hourly, facility-specific median length of stay (LOS) for admissions by years and by ED category. eFigure S6. Median and interquartile range (25th percentile, 75th percentile) of daily, facility-specific percent left without being seen (LWBS) and left against medical advice (LAMA) for all EDs and by ED category. eFigure S7. Median and interquartile range (25th percentile, 75th percentile) for daily, facility-specific percent left without being seen (LWBS) by years and by ED category. eFigure S8. Median and interquartile range (25th percentile, 75th percentile) for daily, facility-specific percent left against medical advice (LAMA) by years and by ED category.

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)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2230.010

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.241 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicEmergency and Acute Care Studies→French-language works237,207→