MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2460840312 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2016-002647

Experiences of emergency department nurses in providing palliative care to adults with advanced cancer

2016· article· en· W2460840312 on OpenAlexafffund
Amanda Revels, Brenda Sabo, Erna Snelgrove‐Clarke, Sheri Price, Simon Field, Melissa Helwig

Bibliographic record

VenueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health AuthorityNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsEmergency departmentPalliative careMedicineMedical emergencyCancerNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

REVIEW QUESTIONS/OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to explore the experiences and perceptions of emergency department nurses in providing palliative care to adults with advanced cancer so as to contribute to the developing knowledge base on this phenomenon and, in turn, inform future practice and policy changes. Specifically, the review question for this qualitative review is as follows: what are the experiences and perceptions of emergency department nurses in providing palliative care to adults with advanced cancer?

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.359 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation ReportsSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207