MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W41414845 · doi:10.1177/082585971302900102

A Population-Based Study on Advance Directive Completion and Completion Intention among citizens of the Western Canadian province of Alberta

2013· article· en· W41414845 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Donna M. Wilson, Dirk Houttekier, Sabu Aliyar Kunju, Stephen Birch, Joachim Cohen, Rod MacLeod, Jessica A. Hewitt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Care · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDirectiveViewpointsPopulationPsychologyTelephone interviewTelephone surveyGerontologyFamily medicineMedicineDemographySociologyBusinessAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determining what proportion of the public has completed an advance directive and which population subgroups complete or do not complete such a directive is crucially important for planning purposes. Our research objective was to examine and compare advance directive completion, intention to complete, and noncompletion rates among citizens of one Canadian province. A telephone survey was conducted with 1,203 Albertans who met gender, age, and other requirements for a representative sample. When asked, "Do you have a living will or personal directive?" 43.6 percent reported having completed a directive and 42.1 percent indicated that they planned or intended to complete one. Completion rates increased with age. Widowed, self-employed, and retired people, and those who had lost a family member or friend and had other select end-of-life experiences and viewpoints were significantly more likely to have completed one. Although older people more often had an advance directive, personal life-and-death experiences should be recognized as major influences on directive completion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations27
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative CareSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207