MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Autonomy, dignity, respect, and the patient-centred approach

2006· book-chapter· en· W2484631100 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fiona Randall

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPatient Dignity and Privacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDignityAutonomyPalliative careCompetence (human resources)NursingHealth carePsychologyMedicineEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceSocial psychologyLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter discusses other significant concepts in palliative care that are employed in the regulation of the professional–patient relationship. These concepts, which are widely used and are significant in other branches of health care and in society as a whole, are autonomy, dignity, choice, and respect. Concepts that are specific to health care, such as communication, competence, and consent to treatment, are also considered. All of these concepts can be summarized as patient-centred care approaches. The chapter also considers studies of the concept of dignity presented in the Canadian journal Journal of Palliative Care (JPC) and relates these to end-of-life care.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.190 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPatient Dignity and PrivacyFrench-language works237,207