Bibliographic record
Abstract
Palliative Care Matters is a national initiative designed to develop consensus on the steps that need to be taken now to ensure Canadians can access high-quality palliative care services as part of Canada's universal healthcare model. Covenant Health and the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer joined with leading national health organizations to lead this initiative, resulting in a Consensus Development Conference in November 2016. Six questions were identified by experts in the field to form the basis of the conference. The questions were first explored with Canadians through focus groups to assess views toward the topics. The qualitative research results were then used to develop an online survey conducted with 1540 Canadians to gauge views on palliative care. The survey results identified what essential elements should be included in a palliative care (and home care) program. Canadians express a desire for palliative healthcare providers to have "specialized certifications" and they have a moderate level of self-confidence in their own palliative caregiving knowledge and abilities. Awareness of palliative care is not widespread in Canada, but support for a modest educational public health campaign is prevalent. Canadians also strongly support national palliative care standards and integration into the Canada Health Act, but simultaneously express financial concerns regarding the associated costs required. The public opinion survey results were used as part of the deliberations at the Consensus Development Conference, culminating in a consensus statement being issued to inform potential policy options and implementation plans for palliative care in Canada.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".