MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2597757536

Considérations Juridiques et Empiriques de L'Application de la Loi Concernant Les Soins de Fin de Vie en Sphère Clinique (Legal and Empirical Aspects of the Application of the Act Respecting End-of-Life Care in the Clinical Sphere)

2016· article· fr· W2597757536 on OpenAlexaff
Elsa Acem

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Palliative careAssisted suicideHumanitiesPolitical sciencePsychologyNursingMedicinePhilosophyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

French Abstract: Les conflits en sphere clinique sont souvent dus a une mauvaise communication entre soignants, patients, et leurs representants. En l’absence d’une amelioration de ces relations, le nombre de discordes risque d’augmenter lors de l’administration de la sedation palliative continue et de l’aide medicale a mourir. Un examen de certaines etudes empiriques qui analysent la communication dans l’environnement medical, notamment pour ce qui a trait a l’obtention d’un consentement eclaire aux soins de fin de vie, ainsi que l’impact des differences culturelles et religieuses entre soignants et patients, permet d’identifier certaines pistes de solutions et d’effectuer une application de la Loi concernant les soins de fin de vie dans le respect des droits des patients. English Abstract: The medical environment is characterized by certain problems relating to communication between healthcare providers, patients and their representatives. These problems may become exacerbated in the context of the administration of continuous palliative sedation and physician assisted suicide. A review of empirical research which examines certain aspects of obtaining an informed consent for end of life care, as well as the hurdles associated with cultural and religious differences between healthcare providers and patients, provides certain insights which may avoid conflicts associated with the application of the Act Respecting End-of-life Care, and ensure that the Act is applied in a manner which is consistent with patients’ rights.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.100
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.196
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1000.196
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0060.028
Scholarly communication0.0120.010
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.421 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicHealth, Medicine and Society→French-language works237,207→