MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W84639916

Can cloud computing benefit health services? - a SWOT analysis.

2011· article· en· W84639916 on OpenAlexaff
Mu-Hsing Kuo, André Kushniruk, Elizabeth M. Borycki

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingSWOT analysisComputer scienceHealth careUtility computingData scienceProcess managementCloud computing securityKnowledge managementRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we discuss cloud computing, the current state of cloud computing in healthcare, and the challenges and opportunities of adopting cloud computing in healthcare. A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis was used to evaluate the feasibility of adopting this computing model in healthcare. The paper concludes that cloud computing could have huge benefits for healthcare but there are a number of issues that will need to be addressed before its widespread use in healthcare.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207