MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W16002525 · doi:10.1177/082585970602200307

Vulnerability, Disability, and Palliative End-of-Life Care

2006· article· en· W16002525 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah Stienstra, Harvey Max Chochinov

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Care · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsCancerCare ManitobaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careVulnerability (computing)End-of-life carePrejudice (legal term)Quality of life (healthcare)PsychologyNursingMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Palliative care has paid exceedingly little attention to the needs of disabled people nearing the end of life. It is often assumed that these individuals, like all patients with little time left to live, arrive at palliative care with various needs and vulnerabilities that by and large, can be understood and accommodated within routine standards of practice. However, people with longstanding disabilities have lived with and continue to experience various forms of prejudice, bias, disenfranchisement, and devaluation. Each of these impose heightened vulnerability, requiring an honest, thoughtful, yet difficult revisiting of the standard model of palliative care. A proposed Vulnerability Model of Palliative Care attempts to incorporate the realities of life with disability and how a contextualized understanding of vulnerability can inform how we approach quality, compassionate palliative care for marginalized persons approaching death.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.019
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations40
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative CareSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207