The ‘heart’ of the matter: that's where advance care planning engagement begins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As we look at best practice and research in ACP, we must not overlook the humanity and vulnerability we share with our colleagues, our patients and their families - the key to ACP engagement. ACP is about expressing wishes, values and beliefs for care at a time when people are most vulnerable, perhaps unable to communicate for themselves, and perhaps approaching death. It is the inevitability that we all will face, personally and with loved ones. When we share personal stories about ACP with health care professionals and the patients and families we serve, a synergy of personal stories and engagement emerges. Stemming from our ACP discussions with patients and families, and the experience of program implementation and ACP facilitation education with physicians and staff, this presentation will illustrate that it is through stories that speak to our common vulnerability and humanity that health care professionals are inspired to incorporate ACP more fully into their clinical practice, and patients and families ‘get’ the importance of talking about their future health care wishes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.040 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".