MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

“Truth Telling” and Cultural Assumptions in an Era of Informed Consent

2007· article· en· W1967835678 on OpenAlexaffabout
John L. Oliffe, Sally Thorne, T. Gregory Hislop, Elizabeth-Anne Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily & Community Health · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyInformed consentContext (archaeology)Health carePsychologyNursingSocial psychologyMedicineAlternative medicinePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patient and healthcare provider communication is vital in cancer care and aspects of the patients' experiences provide valuable insight to what constitutes effective cancer communication. In this article we describe the communication experiences of patients from nondominant cultures who accessed Canadian-based cancer services. The findings enabled us to thoughtfully reflect on Western ideals about autonomy and responsibility and their relationship to informed consent in the context of cancer communication.

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)0.235
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.198
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2350.198
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.188
Scholarly communication0.0180.025
Open science0.0030.017
Research integrity0.0130.034
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 head0.458
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.062 · 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.

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

Citations34
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily & Community HealthSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207