Palliative care. First and foremost the domain of family physicians.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A few years ago, an editorial in Canadian Family Physician ended on a laconic note with this remark, “Maybe home palliative care is too important to be left in the hands of family physicians.”1 The question is still valid today, as Canadians demand that physicians provide terminally ill patients with even better care. In 2001, there were more than 219 000 deaths in Canada: 29% from cancer; 26% from cardiovascular disease; and 7% from strokes.2 In Quebec, 24% of deaths from cancer or non–cancer-related chronic diseases occur in long-term care facilities and only 9% occur while patients are being cared for at home.3 When patients are being cared for at home, family physicians are the primary, if not the only, medical professionals caring for them during the last few weeks of their lives. In the palliative care units with which we are familiar, average length of stay is less than 9 days,4 indicating that most palliative care is provided in the community. The question is, are family physicians the physicians most adequately prepared to deliver this care?
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
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".