MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395755657 · doi:10.1177/082585970201800103

The Challenge of Developing a Regional Palliative Care Data System: A Tale of Two Cities

2002· article· en· W2395755657 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patrick Critchley, Lynne Lohfeld, David Maxwell, Paul McIntyre, Leonard Reyno

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Care · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversitySt Joseph's Health CareQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careMinimum Data SetHealth careSet (abstract data type)MEDLINEMedicineData scienceNursingComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews the purposes of health care databases and the findings from a literature review of the use of patient databases in palliative care. We present the history and goals of databases developed in two Canadian settings, Hamilton and Halifax. We present data on the strengths, limitations, and difficulties encountered in each setting. We review the types of data collected and the potential of these databases, and we offer practical recommendations for others looking to set up such systems.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.305
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.130 · 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.

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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative CareSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207