Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advance Care Planning (ACP) is the process by which individuals make decisions that can guide their future healthcare if they become incompetent. Creation of an Advance Care Plan should involve discussions with healthcare providers and substitute decision makers (SDM). ACP can assist individuals, their families, and healthcare professionals in planning for future and end-of-life (EOL) care. Recent research suggests that ACP can increase discussions about EOL preferences and improve the concordance between patient preferences and their EOL care. More than 50% of Canadians have not completed an Advanced Care Plan. This may be due to a variety of reasons, however it is possible that the community does not have enough knowledge about healthcare options that can be provided in the hospitals. Current research is focused on identifying barriers and facilitators to ACP, as well as implementing methods for incorporating it during standard medical care. Various stakeholders have identified ACP as a priority, and in order to raise awareness, April 16th has been designated as National Advance Care Planning Day in Canada
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
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".