MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056188175 · doi:10.5737/1181912x223195199

Palliative sedation to alleviate existential suffering at end-of-life: Insight into a controversial practice

2012· article· en· W2056188175 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kim Sadler

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Oncology Nursing Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative sedationExistentialismPalliative careTerminally illMedicineNursing practiceEnd-of-life careSedationNursingPsychotherapistPsychologyIntensive care medicineEpistemologyPhilosophyAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All terminally ill individuals should have access to palliative care that gives equal importance to all aspects of suffering. In spite of all the efforts made, some of these individuals will, unfortunately, be left with suffering described as "refractory". It would appear that palliative sedation then becomes an option. There is much controversy around this practice, especially when it is used to alleviate suffering of a more existential nature. This article aims first to define the practice of palliative sedation, second to explore the concept of existential suffering in palliative care and third to address the implications for nursing practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.337 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Oncology Nursing JournalSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207