MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234683868 · doi:10.1055/s-0034-1398728

Bericht – 1. Mainzer Workshop zur Dignity Therapy – Rückblick und Ausblick

2015· article· de· W4234683868 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift für Palliativmedizin · 2015
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldMedicine
TopicPatient Dignity and Privacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDignityHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Im Nachgang zur Fachtagung „Würde und existentielles Leid am Ende des Lebens“ mit dem Begründer der „Dignity Therapy“, Harvey M. Chochinov (Manitoba, Kanada), veranstaltete die Interdisziplinäre Abteilung für Palliativmedizin der Unimedizin Mainz in Kooperation mit dem Institut für Palliativpsychologie am 5./6. November 2014 einen Workshop für 16 Teilnehmer zur praktischen Anwendung der „Dignity Therapy“.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1670.083

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZeitschrift für PalliativmedizinSame topicPatient Dignity and PrivacyFrench-language works237,207