MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046768025 · doi:10.1017/s1478951520000589

Operationalizing dignity therapy for adolescents

2020· letter· en· W3046768025 on OpenAlexaff
Miguel Julião, Ana Santos, Sara Albuquerque, Bárbara Antunes, Margarida Crujo, María Ana Sobral, Cândida Cancelinha, Duarte Soares, Emília Fradique, Maria João Palaré, Harvey Max Chochinov

Bibliographic record

VenuePalliative & Supportive Care · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPatient Dignity and Privacy
Canadian institutionsResearch Institute in Oncology and HematologyCancerCare Manitoba
FundersDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsOperationalizationDignityMedicinePsychotherapistPsychologyPolitical scienceEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0090.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalliative & Supportive CareSame topicPatient Dignity and PrivacyFrench-language works237,207