Bibliographic record
Abstract
PART I: INTRODUCTION 1. Applying a public health perspective in end-of-life care PART II: CLINICAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT OF DEATH AND DYING 2. Place of death and end-of-life care 3. Circumstances of death and dying 4. End-of-life decisions 5. Economic and health related consequences of individuals caring for terminally ill cancer patients in Canada PART III: END-OF-LIFE CARE: PROVISION, ACCESS, AND CHARACTERISTICS 6. Aggressive treatment and palliative care at the end of life 7. Access to palliative care 8. Communication between patient and caregiver PART IV: END-OF-LIFE CARE SETTINGS 9. Palliative care in primary care 10. Palliative care in institutional long-term care settings 11. Palliative care in hospitals PART V: INEQUALITIES AT THE END OF LIFE: UNDERSERVED GROUPS 12. Non-cancer patients 13. Palliative care for the older adult 14. A public health framework for pediatric palliative and hospice care 15. End-of-life care for patients with intellectual disabilities 16. End-of-life care for people who live in rural or remote areas versus those who live in urban areas 17. Social inequalities at the end of life PART VI: END-OF-LIFE CARE POLICIES 18. Design, implementation, and evaluation of palliative care programs and services with a public health who perspective 19. Public health policy regarding end-of-life care in sub-Saharan Africa 20. Palliative care in the global context: understanding policies to support end-of-life care 21. The importance of family carers in end-of-life care: a public health approach PART VII: CONCLUSION 22. Conclusions
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".