Paediatric palliative care research in Canada: Development and progress of a new emerging team
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paediatric pallative care is a field distinct from adult palliative care, although there are many overlaps in language, approach and philosophy. Several features, however, distinguish paediatric palliative care. The illnesses that affect children are different from those that are most predominant in the adult population. In addition, the role and involvement of the family, while always important in palliative care generally, is heightened in paediatric palliative care. In this new and growing interdisciplinary speciality, paediatric palliative care professionals recognize that children exist within a family system, with individual members making up the components (1). These distinguishing characteristics mean that we cannot simply translate general or adult palliative care research to the paediatric arena. Canada has been a leader in the development of clinical paediatric palliative care, with programs in the major Canadian geographical centres, as well as North America’s first free-standing children’s hspice, Canuck Place Children’s Hospice (Vancouver, British COlumbia). At the same time, there is widespread acknowledgement that not enough research has been undertaken within paediatric palliative care to provide an adequate evidence base for practice. To increase research capacity in Canada, in 2004, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research funded a research program entitled ‘Transitions in Pediatric Palliative and End-of-Life Care’ through a New Emerging Team grant.
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 | 0.134 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".