MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169561232 · doi:10.12968/ijpn.2004.10.4.12794

Dignity-conserving care: application of research findings to practice

2004· article· en· W2169561232 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Palliative Nursing · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPatient Dignity and Privacy
Canadian institutionsSt. Boniface HospitalWinnipeg Regional Health AuthorityCancerCare ManitobaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDignityConstruct (python library)Palliative carePerspective (graphical)Terminally illNursingPopulationMedicineEngineering ethicsPsychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A central tenet of palliative care is to help people die with "dignity". The widespread use of this term presupposes that this construct is well understood from the perspective of the terminally ill, and that the factors that bolster or erode dignity are known. However, the paucity of research related to these issues suggests otherwise. Over the past 5 years, this research team, headed by Dr Chochinov, has undertaken a programme of research aimed at explicating what dignity means to those who are terminally ill, and identifying those factors that support and undermine dignity in this patient population. This article will provide a synopsis of that work, with an emphasis on the application of research findings for 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.394 · 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