MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154495837 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100833

Denied the right to comfort: Racial inequities in palliative care provision

2021· article· en· W3154495837 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kavita Algu

Bibliographic record

VenueEClinicalMedicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePalliative careHealth careOppressionDehumanizationHuman rightsNursingLawCriminologySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People who are racialized often exist in the margins of our health systems. Inequitable health care is experienced from the moment of birth and continues throughout life, extending into end of life and palliative care. This occurs even though the United Nations acknowledges palliative care as a human right [1], and the World Health Organization (WHO) mandates that all states provide it [2]. As we strive for health systems where all people are treated equitably, palliative care must be included. To begin, it is important to collate what is known, and then to chart a way forward.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.016
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0050.014
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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations35
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEClinicalMedicineSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207