MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082544183 · doi:10.1002/cncr.22067

The Birmingham International Workshop on Supportive, Palliative, and End‐of‐Life Care Research

2006· article· en· W2082544183 on OpenAlexafffund
Neil A. Hagen, Julia Addington‐Hall, Michael Sharpe, Alison Richardson, Charles S. Cleeland

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Cancer Research InstituteCancer Research Institute
KeywordsPalliative careEnd-of-life careMedicineContext (archaeology)Nursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors outline the context, discussions, and recommendations of the International Symposium on Supportive, Palliative, and End of Life Care, which was held October 5 and 6, 2005 in Birmingham, England. The potential benefits and challenges of international collaborative research activities are highlighted in supportive, palliative, and end‐of‐life care within the broader health care research community.

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)0.129
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1290.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0060.012
Scholarly communication0.0200.012
Open science0.0050.019
Research integrity0.0140.030
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.006

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.305 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations22
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207