Death duties: workshop on what family physicians are expected to do when patients die.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM BEING ADDRESSED: Family physicians are often called upon to pronounce and certify the deaths of patients. Inadequate knowledge of the Coroners Act (in the province of Ontario) and of the correct process of certifying death can make physicians uncomfortable when confronted with these tasks. OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM: To educate family physicians about how to perform the administrative tasks required of them when patients die. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The program included an educational video, a tutorial outlining the process of death certification, and discussion with a regional coroner about key features of the Coroners Act. In small groups, participants worked through cases of patient deaths in which they were asked to determine whether a coroner needed to be involved, to determine the manner of death, and to complete a mock death certificate for each case. CONCLUSION: All participants reported a high level of satisfaction with the workshop and thought the main objective of the program had been achieved. Results of a test given 3 months after the workshop showed substantial improvement in participants' knowledge of the coroner's role and of the process of death certification.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".