MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1536785595 · doi:10.25011/cim.v36i3.19720

End of Life Care in Canada: A Report from the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences Forum

2013· article· en· W1536785595 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Graeme Rocker

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary sciencePolitical scienceHealth careMedicineEnd-of-life careFamily medicineGerontologyNursingLawPalliative care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Ottawa on September 20, 2012, the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences held a forum entitled, ‘End of Life Care: the Last 100 Days’. Following an opening plenary by Dr. Daren Heyland, presentations and discussions ensued, highlighting recent research, current controversies, and future directions to improve end-of-life care in Canada [1]. Three articles in this issue of Clinical Investigative Medicine build on presentations from that day.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0180.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0080.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.403
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.057 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicineSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207