MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766647205 · doi:10.4103/apjon.apjon_43_17

Nursing and the future of palliative care

2017· editorial· en· W2766647205 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karla Schroeder, Karl Lorenz

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing · 2017
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingPalliative careMedicinePopulationSpiritual careHealth careEconomic shortageIntervention (counseling)Family medicineSpiritualityAlternative medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nurses represent the largest group of health-care professionals in the United States of America. Currently, 3.6 million nurses are positioned to contribute to the provision of holistic person-centered care. 1 Internationally, nurses comprise the largest group of health-care providers. Nurses are a vital resource for ensuring the provision of safe and effective care for the global population. 2

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.390 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations136
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia-Pacific Journal of Oncology NursingSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207