MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1967141306 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.109-3746

End-of-life planning framework calls for fewer checklists

2010· article· en· W1967141306 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ludwig Vogel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProcess (computing)Advance care planningReflection (computer programming)Health careEnd-of-life careProcess managementNursingMedicinePalliative careBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A national framework for advance care planning would see Canada’s “tick-box” approach to preparing for the worst incorporated into a more formal process of ongoing communication and reflection between patients, their families and health care providers. The framework, now in development by the

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)0.116
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.187
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1160.187
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0070.010
Research integrity0.0060.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.005

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.336 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→