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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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