Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le présent numéro de la RCMIG, Quinn et coll. discutent des mérites des médecins qui prennent le temps de se concentrer sur les objectifs globaux du plan de soins chez les patients atteints de démence avancée et qu’ils voient pour un problème aigu. Plutôt que de traiter immédiatement la nouvelle maladie, Quinn et coll. suggèrent que le plan de soins clinique soit envisagé dans le contexte des objectifs et attentes globaux spécifiques à la personne atteinte de démence avancée. Évidemment, à moins que ces derniers ne soient clairement énoncés par avance, c’est un problème de savoir en quoi ils consistent pour un patient qui est en état avancé de déclin cognitif. Dans une telle situation, les fournisseurs de soins de santé doivent souvent s’en remettre à la famille du patient pour avoir des indications, mais celle-ci n’en a pas toujours vraiment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".