The Nordic Specialist Course in Palliative Medicine: evaluation and experiences from the first course 2003–2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Palliative medicine is not recognized as a medical specialty in any of the five Nordic countries, but there is a great need for physicians with specialty qualifications to serve on an increasing number of palliative care services. The Associations for Palliative Medicine in the five countries agreed to develop a common Nordic course on a specialty level. RESULTS: A theoretical training course in six modules in two years was developed, based on the British palliative medicine curriculum and including a limited research project and a written exam. Twenty-two out of 30 students completed the first course as scheduled in 2005, and five more have obtained their course diploma later. The evaluation from the students showed very satisfactory personal experiences and subjective learning outcomes, and a positive influence on the overall development of palliative care in the respective countries. CONCLUSION: The Nordic Specialist Course in Palliative Medicine has proved a successful Nordic collaboration and may form the basis for a full specialist training programme.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".