MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2595188393 · doi:10.31581/jbs-25.3.5(2015)

Primum Non Nocere

2015· article· en· W2595188393 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aaron Alizadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Bahá’í Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubspecialtyMedicineConversationEconomic shortageAlternative medicineFaithCause of deathFamily medicineOncologyInternal medicinePsychologyPathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical oncology is a subspecialty of internal medicine that focuses on the treatment of cancer. Cancer is the second leading cause of mortality in the U.S. Therefore death is a frequent subject for oncologists. However, oncology training emphasizes cancer therapy with little guidance on counseling in preparation for death. Physicians such as the writer Atul Gawande are working to bring back the topic of death into the physician-patient conversation. Furthermore, many religions, including the Bahá’í Faith, can help to address how death is perceived and discussed by physicians. The purpose of this article is to review my personal experience as an oncologist and as a Bahá’í, as it relates to the topic of death.

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)0.004
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.443
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Bahá’í StudiesSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207