MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Speak Up - A National Advance Care Planning Campaign in Canada

2011· article· en· W2150108684 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sharon Baxter, Kimberly Chow, Louise Hanvey

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Supportive & Palliative Care · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsCanadian Hospice Palliative Care Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipAdvance care planningPublic relationsConversationPolitical scienceHealth careWork (physics)Palliative careNursingMedicinePsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association has established a Canadian National Advance Care Planning (ACP) Day/Campaign – Speak Up: Start the Conversation about End-of-Life Care. This campaign, which includes a national day to recognize ACP, provides an annual opportunity for individuals to discuss their wishes with family, friends and health care professionals while raising overall awareness of the importance of ACP throughout the year. The ACP day/campaign engages professionals and the public alike through partnerships, organizational events and media events. The premier day was launched on 12 April, 2011. The campaign has been launched in partnership with 16 partners, including professional associations (medicine, nursing and law); research organizations and academics; regional health authorities; health-focused non-governmental organizations; and communications experts. It was based on 2 years of work including the development of ACP in Canada: A National Framework through broad consultation with over 100 stakeholders across the country. This workshop will highlight the accomplishments of Speak Up. It will demonstrate the ways that organizations and individuals across a country are able to promote ACP in their communities. The workshop will demonstrate and describe the various resources and tools used in the campaign, and discuss the communications strategies for promoting ACP awareness. Workshop presenters will showcase toolkits for professionals and the public, a dynamic website; and poster and other promotional templates, as well as communication strategies and background resources. Participants will explore how they, their organizations and their communities could develop and become engaged in similar campaigns.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.252 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Supportive & Palliative CareSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207