MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075821264 · doi:10.12968/ijpn.2002.8.8.10681

Palliative care research: methodological and ethical challenges

2002· article· en· W2075821264 on OpenAlexaff
Ruth Anne Kinsman Dean, Susan McClement

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Palliative Nursing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careSpecialtyNursingFoundation (evidence)Ethical issuesMedicinePsychologyEngineering ethicsFamily medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nursing research in palliative care has, to date, been limited. As palliative care is increasingly recognized as a nursing specialty area, it requires the scientific foundation that research provides. Palliative care clients are particularly vulnerable because of the intensity of their illnesses and the emotional impact of impending death. This article identifies and discusses ethical and methodological challenges faced by those conducting research with this population. Suggestions for strategies that may help researchers meet these challenges are included.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.793
GPT teacher head0.622
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations66
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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