MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1574721266 · doi:10.5750/ejpch.v2i1.708

Response to Discussion Paper by Miles and Mezzich

2014· article· en· W1574721266 on OpenAlexaff
Tom A. Hutchinson, Patricia L. Dobkin, Steven Jordan, Stephen Liben, Mark Smilovitch

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal for Person Centered Healthcare · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElement (criminal law)Palliative careSpace (punctuation)MedicinePsychologyNursingSociologyPolitical scienceLawPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“The way care is given can reach the most hidden places and give space for unexpected development”.The quote above from Dame Cicely Saunders, founder of the modern Hospice and Palliative Care movement, captures an important element of our response to the excellent discussion paper on person-centered medicine by Miles and Mezzich [2]. We agree wholeheartedly with their call for a person-centered medicine and would further highlight an additional possibility in their discussion which currently emphasizes conscious exchange of information between the persons giving and receiving care and shared decision-making.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal for Person Centered HealthcareSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207