MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989862936 · doi:10.1179/096992605x42387

EDITORIAL: Korean Declaration

2005· editorial· en· W1989862936 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David C. Currow

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress in Palliative Care · 2005
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeclarationPalliative careSummitMedicineNursingService (business)Health carePublic administrationPublic relationsPolitical scienceBusinessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1995, a group of key organisations and service providers from around the world met in Barcelona in association with the European Association of Palliative Care meeting. At that time the 'Barcelona Declaration' was put together. A decade on, at the 2nd Global Summit of National Palliative Care & Hospice Associations held in Seoul, Korea, a subsequent Declaration has been put in place. This broadens the concepts captured in the 1995 Declaration. It provides a framework for governments and health funding organisations around the world in which they need to work in order to ensure adequate access to palliative care.This document is an important step forward in placing palliative care firmly on the agenda of all health services across the world, acknowledging local resourcing limitations but suggesting in clear terms that palliative care is a clinical service that needs to be grown alongside other services universally.The Committee chaired by Sharon Baxter from Canada worked with the organisations represented at the Seoul meeting to put together this important Declaration. Please ensure that your governments, funders and health authorities are aware of the breadth of this. It is a useful document to provide to health services who have little insight into palliative care and the benefits that can be achieved through good palliation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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