MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107523411 · doi:10.1136/ebn.6.2.36

Evaluation of qualitative research studies

2003· article· en· W2107523411 on OpenAlexaff
Cynthia K. Russell, David Gregory

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchUnit (ring theory)Palliative careSign (mathematics)PsychologyEnd-of-life careInstitutionMedical educationNursingMedicineSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

You work on a palliative care unit where you have many opportunities to discuss end of life decisions with patients and family members. In a recent team meeting of your unit's providers, the topic of "appropriate" treatment choices for patients at end of life comes up. Some providers believe that they should counsel patients and family members to "help them make better end of life decisions so that they will have a good death." There is, however, no consensus about how this should be done.

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)0.513
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.659
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5130.659
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0140.019
Science and technology studies0.0090.008
Scholarly communication0.0120.010
Open science0.0060.011
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.879
GPT teacher head0.709
Teacher spread0.170 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations292
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207