MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605732867 · doi:10.1017/s1049023x17001406

Aid - When There is “Nothing Left to Offer”: A Survey and Qualitative Study of Ethics and Palliative Care During International Humanitarian Emergencies

2017· article· en· W2605732867 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Schwartz, Matthew Hunt, Élysée Nouvet

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital and Disaster Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNothingAction (physics)Qualitative researchPalliative carePsychologyMedicineMedical emergencyNursingSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conclusion: It is important for humanitarians to identify and discuss ethical challenges and problems, to ensure responses to emergencies are not disconnected or lead to negative impacts.While this paper cannot show saturation of the types of ethical challenges facing humanitarian healthcare organizations, it is a move to bring stories forward and formalize and capture histories so we can learn from them.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.014
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrehospital and Disaster MedicineSame topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207