“Sedation” or “palliative sedative practices at the end of life”? A linguistic study of guidelines developed in French-speaking countries on sedation in palliative care for adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Despite the number and importance of French-language guidelines related to palliative sedation for adults, these texts have never been the subject of a linguistic analysis.Objectives: This study aimed to explore and analyze the terms used for sedation and their definitions in Belgian, French, Quebec, and Swiss guidelines.Methods: Current documents were subjected to textual, terminological, and conceptual analysis.Results: Belgian, Quebec, and Swiss guidelines use the same term to refer to sedation, without, however, conceptualizing it in a consistent way. By contrast, guidelines developed in France use various terms but define sedation in a similar (but not identical) way. Cultural specificities linked to end-of-life legislation in those countries and region were identified as a potential causal factor.Discussion and conclusion: The diversity of terms and definitions inevitably reinforces the imprecision of the medical language, and the terminology in particular. This is likely to have a negative impact on communication between healthcare professionals, patients, and their families. Efforts should be made to homogenize the terminology and definitions used in guidelines.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".