MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404649104 · doi:10.1177/082585970402000107

The Status of Undergraduate Palliative Medicine Education in Canada: A 2001 Survey

2004· article· en· W2404649104 on OpenAlexaffabout
D Oneschuk, Brent Moloughney, Elaine M. Jones-McLean, Andrea Challis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Care · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaCanadian Rheumatology Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careCurriculumMedical educationMedicineMedical schoolCurriculum developmentFamily medicineNeeds assessmentNursingPsychologySociologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A survey was conducted in fall 2001/spring 2002 to provide an update on the status of undergraduate palliative medicine education in Canada. The survey identified that the majority of palliative care teaching occurs in the pre-clinical years of medical school, with supervised patient encounters occurring primarily during electives. The coverage of palliative care topics is inconsistent across curricula. Student evaluation methods also vary, with only one school using simulated patients. More than half the schools have an academic division or department of palliative care medicine, although faculty with protected academic time are few in number. A number of barriers to palliative medicine education were identified, including competition for time within the undergraduate curriculum, and lack of resources for curriculum development and teaching. Respondents recommended increased clinical exposure, curriculum development, student assessment and evaluation, faculty development, and improved infrastructure. Following these recommendations, the Undergraduate Palliative Medicine Committee has dedicated itself to developing and fostering a strategic implementation plan to improve palliative medicine education in Canadian medical schools.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 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

Citations39
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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