MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063786080 · doi:10.12968/ijpn.2009.15.5.42343

Harnessing nurses’ passion

2009· editorial· en· W2063786080 on OpenAlexaffabout
Doris Howell

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Palliative Nursing · 2009
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPassionPalliative careNursingHealth careFocus groupFace (sociological concept)MedicinePsychologyFamily medicineSociologyPolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nurses are touching the lives of individuals who face advanced, progressive diseases and their families in many non-traditional palliative healthcare settings. In recent focus groups and a survey of nurses across a region in Canada, we were struck by the reach of nurses in caring for palliative populations in many diverse care settings. I would like to share some of the nurse participants’ stories with you.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0130.010
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0210.039
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.403 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Palliative NursingSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207