MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784502951 · doi:10.21037/apm.2018.s002

AB002. Collaborative and participatory approaches to building community capacity for palliative and end of life care

2018· article· en· W2784502951 on OpenAlexaffabout
Martin LaBrie

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Palliative Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careGeneral partnershipMetropolitan areaMedicineNursingPresentation (obstetrics)End-of-life careCitizen journalismHealth careRural areaParticipatory action researchEconomic growthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People living in rural and smaller urban areas near Calgary experience difficulty accessing palliative care services which are concentrated in metropolitan areas. The Cumming School of Medicine, Alberta Health Services and community hospice palliative care societies in two rural communities have been working to develop a partnership that incorporates local health system resources and community initiatives in supporting individuals and families living with progressive, life-limiting illnesses. This presentation will provide an understanding of how academic institutions and health services can collaborate with community members to enhance capacity for end of life care, and enrich communities in the process. The Cumming School of Medicine, Alberta Health Services and community hospice palliative care societies have been collaboratively working together to enhance community capacity to support individuals and their families in providing end of life care. This presentation will explore this relationship and how it enriches communities in the process.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0610.007

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 head0.655
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Palliative MedicineSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207