MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037414981 · doi:10.1080/08854726.2014.902713

Outcomes for Professional Health Care Chaplaincy: An International Call to Action

2014· editorial· en· W2037414981 on OpenAlexafffund
George Handzo, Mark Cobb, Cheryl L. Holmes, Ewan Kelly, Shane Sinclair

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Care Chaplaincy · 2014
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersGovernment of AlbertaScottish GovernmentAustralian GovernmentFetzer InstituteJohn Templeton Foundation
KeywordsCall to actionPastoral careAction (physics)NursingHealth carePsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceBusinessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health care in industrialized countries is increasingly focused on outcomes (Department of Health, 2013). The reasons for this focus are complex and contextualized but adopting this new currency is...

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.137
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.137
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0130.013
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0320.055
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.422 · 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
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

Citations101
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health Care ChaplaincySame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207