MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1526405391 · doi:10.1177/070674370805301104

Palliative Care for People with Severe Persistent Mental Illness: A Review of the Literature

2008· review· en· W1526405391 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Anne Woods, Kathleen Willison, Cindy Kington, Alan Gavin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careNursingMedicineMental illnessMental healthPopulationPsychologyFamily medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A systematic overview of the literature on palliative care for people with severe persistent mental illness (SPMI) was conducted to inform clinical practice, research, and education. Empirical studies and nonempirical papers were included. Few empirical studies exist. There is even less information about the palliative care needs of, or the nature of palliative care provided to, people with SPMI. Mental health, primary care, and palliative care providers need to partner with people who have SPMI in developing and providing palliative care. The field of palliative care for people with SPMI is wide open and in need of methodologically sound studies that will help define the issues that exist for this vulnerable population. Recognizing the similarities between mental health and palliative care should lead to collaborative ventures and discussions in an attempt to address common and parallel issues.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.321 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations97
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207