MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Palliative Care Declarations: Mapping a New Form of Intervention

2016· letter· en· W2411149594 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hamilton Inbadas, Shahaduz Zaman, Alexander Whitelaw, David Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pain and Symptom Management · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsMedicineIntervention (counseling)Palliative careMedical emergencyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is 21 years since the JPSM published the Declaration of Florianópolis, drawing attention to the need for improved access to pain and palliative care services in Latin America.1 In the intervening years, there has been a growing tendency for palliative care associations and organizations to issue formal public statements of this type. Declarations have become part of the international palliative care landscape. They appear to require significant orchestration and planning, and yet they have not been examined from a research perspective.

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)0.102
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.144
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1020.144
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.015
Science and technology studies0.0110.034
Scholarly communication0.0250.046
Open science0.0060.026
Research integrity0.0060.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.002

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pain and Symptom ManagementSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207