MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017982262 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2009.20947

Shared Decision-Making

2009· article· en· W2017982262 on OpenAlexaff
William Godolphin

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careQuality (philosophy)The InternetHealth professionalsHealthcare deliveryNursingKey (lock)Training (meteorology)MedicinePublic relationsBusinessMedical educationComputer sciencePolitical scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

S hared decision-making (SDM) between physician and patient is an idea founded in ethics and the law and in some evidence of superior health outcomes. SDM is the practical reconciliation of respect for persons (autonomy) and the monopoly and power of physicians: a middle ground between "nanny-knows-best" paternalism and rampant consumerism. SDM includes the notion of a medical encounter as a "meeting of experts" -the physician as an expert in medicine and the patient as expert in his or her own life, values and circumstances The doc prescribes but the patient takes the pills (or doesn't). Trends in healthcare policy emphasize involvement of community and service users in many aspects of their care. Indeed, the popular enthusiasm of governments for self-care initiatives cannot be imagined without such involvement. However, authentic involvement surely requires participation in decision-making.

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)0.056
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0560.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0050.019
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.006

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.312 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations354
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207