Bibliographic record
Abstract
Western society is ageing. The population of the world in general and in Europe in particular, is growing older. If the current trends continue, then by the year 2050 more than a quarter of the people living in developed nations will be over 65 years old.1 Quality end-of-life care increasingly has to be understood as quality care for old and very old persons, as most people who die in our society are well advanced in years. The German database Gerostat indicates that, in the year 2008, more than 75.2% of all men and women who died in Germany were 70 years and older, 50% were 80 years and older, and 14.3% were 90 years and older. Similar figures exist in the UK for England and Wales.2 In 2008, 65.5% people who died were 70 years and older, 53% were 80 years and older and people aged 90 years and over accounted for 17% of deaths. It has been increasingly recognised, over the last 10 years, that older people310 need palliative care in a variety of living situations. Three issues are of particular concern: 1. When should palliative care start with an older person? The World Health Organization defines palliative care as “an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problem associated with life-threatening illness”.11 Whereas, by this definition, palliative care starts when an “incurable” diagnosis is confirmed, this is not necessarily applicable for old age. Old age itself is not a life-threatening illness. However, older people are in need of palliative care when multiple conditions and/or dementia pose a burden upon individuals in terms of pain and symptoms (physical, psychological, social or spiritual).3 In certain cases, palliative care for older people can therefore be applicable years before 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.012 |
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".