Bibliographic record
Abstract
This workshop will describe an initiative within a Canadian health authority (Vancouver Coastal Health, referred to as VCH), in which the Community Engagement Team and the Advance Care Planning (ACP) project leadership partnered to seek this public engagement. To better understand the public's perspectives, and to facilitate greater public acceptance of ACP in our health region, a public forum was held in March 2010. The workshop will outline the forum participants, the program including discussion topics and the outcomes. Themes discussed at the forum included key aspects of public messaging, countering public fear by ‘normalising’ ACP conversations, and supporting patients and families to have these conversations. It was acknowledged that some members of the public might be mistrustful or worried about the intent and outcomes of ACP and thus the need to emphasize the benefits of ACP, ‘a gift to your family’. The forum influenced the emphasis of the ACP project on the importance of communication, the language used for public information, and the ways in which the public are involved in education. At the forum, a number of public participants expressed interest in assisting with public education; subsequently, a group of volunteers has been trained and will present ACP workshops to public groups in our region. The experience of these volunteers will continue to inform our VCH approach to ACP.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".