Palliative Care on the Net: An Online Survey of Health Care Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A survey was conducted to explore Internet use by palliative care health professionals (HCP). The survey was placed on the World Wide Web with an underlying database, and palliative care HCP were invited to participate via a palliative-care-related website, listserv, and newsletter. A total of 417 evaluable responses were received over a four-month period. Of these, 36% indicated they were from physicians and 30% from nurses, a third of respondents were practicing palliative care full time. Although 63% of respondents were from North America, regions from all over the world were represented. Eighty-eight percent of respondents were searching the Internet for clinical information, 80% were using email, 69% were accessing online medical journals, and 59% were subscribers to a palliative-care-related listserv or newsgroup. This survey illustrates the global outreach of the Internet and draws attention to the growing interest in the use of the Internet for education, research, and clinical use. Further development of online resources should address the needs of users. Evaluation of these resources is called for.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".