MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923144359 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2019.25747

Access to Palliative Care in Canada

2019· article· en· W2923144359 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Health Information
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careNursingHealth careBusinessService (business)MedicineBest practiceFamily medicineEconomic growthPolitical scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Palliative care enables a better end of life, but not all Canadians have access to it. Access to community-based palliative care has become a priority for federal, provincial and territorial governments, with an emphasis on services that can help people remain in the community even at the end of life. The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) investigated the current state of access to publicly funded palliative care across the country. The purpose of the research is to help health system planners to identify service gaps and develop strategies for improving care. Using linked administrative data, the analysis found that while many people could benefit from palliative care at the end of life, only a few (15%) received palliative home care in Alberta and Ontario in 2016-2017. The analysis also found that early palliative care in the community was associated with better end-of-life outcomes and that access to palliative care varied by age and whether a patient had cancer or not.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.335 · 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