MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089981083 · doi:10.12968/ijpn.2008.14.1.28153

A question of evidence: decision-making in palliative care nursing

2008· review· en· W2089981083 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Palliative Nursing · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careHierarchyEmpirical evidenceNursingValue (mathematics)Nursing practicePsychologyEvidence-based medicineEmpirical researchMedicineEpistemologyAlternative medicinePolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nurses are urged to integrate research evidence into their practice. Current perspectives of evidence-based practice promote a hierarchy of empirical evidence. Notwithstanding the contribution of empirical knowledge, this approach constrains our understanding of the value and contribution of other forms of knowledge. Shifting to a model of 'evidence informed practice', where multiple forms of knowledge are considered and valued, may better reflect the complexities of end-of-life care and offer a fuller understanding of palliative care nursing best 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 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)0.204
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.476
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2040.476
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.004
Bibliometrics0.0120.012
Science and technology studies0.0050.037
Scholarly communication0.0200.040
Open science0.0090.011
Research integrity0.0290.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.349
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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