MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128903930 · doi:10.5737/236880763117382

Instrument de mesure de la nausée chez l’enfant : traduction française et validité des visages pour les patients canadiens francophones en oncopédiatrie

2021· article· fr· W3128903930 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Anne Choquette, Araby Sivananthan, Annie Guillemette, Martha Pinheiro-Maltez, Linda MacKeigan, Anne‐Marie Langevin, L. Lee Dupuis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Oncology Nursing Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicNausea and vomiting management
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioMcGill UniversityUniversity of TorontoMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesMedicineArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les nausées et les vomissements induits par la chimiothérapie (NVIC) nuisent à la qualité de vie tant des adultes que des patients pédiatriques atteints d’un cancer (Dupuis, Milne-Wren, Cassidy et al., 2010; Farrell, Brearley, Pilling et Molassiotic, 2013; Russo, Cinausero, Gerratana et al., 2014; Hinds, Gattuso, Billups et al., 2009; Sommariva, Pongiglione, et Tarricone, 2016). Les vomissements et les haut-le-cœur sont des symptômes qui s’évaluent objectivement, alors que la nausée est subjective et plus difficile à mesurer. En général, l’intensité de la nausée chez les adultes peut être décrite à l’aide d’échelles d’évaluation visuelle analogique ou qualitative. Il existe à cette fin des instruments validés et recommandés par des spécialistes du domaine, comme celui de la Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (en ligne : www.mascc.org) (Hesketh, Gralla, du Bois et Tonato, 2016).

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Oncology Nursing JournalSame topicNausea and vomiting managementFrench-language works237,207