MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3084809679

Framework on Palliative Care in Canada: Do we have a broad enough lens?

2020· article· en· W3084809679 on OpenAlexaffabout
Erin Gallagher, Denise Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careLens (geology)Health careHealthcare systemMedicineNursingData scienceComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In December 2018, Health Canada released a report entitled the “Framework on Palliative Care in Canada” (the Framework).[1][1] This document was thoughtfully prepared, incorporated broad input, and clearly identified some important changes needed in our health care system. While we applaud the

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)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
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 score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.858

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0340.035
Scholarly communication0.0250.015
Open science0.0110.015
Research integrity0.0170.039
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→