MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405447357 · doi:10.1037/hea0001438

Obliged to fight? Patient moral processes in the face of poor prognosis cancer.

2024· article· en· W4405447357 on OpenAlexaff
Login S. George, Biren Saraiya, Supriya G. Mohile, Emily A. Muha, Saba Sarwar, Paul R. Duberstein

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Cancer InstituteRutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey
KeywordsPsychologyFace (sociological concept)DistressSocial psychologyWelfarePsychotherapistMedicinePolitical scienceSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Theoretical work suggests that moral psychological processes-those pertaining to the interests or welfare of others-are a key driver of overtreatment at the end of life. We examined patient moral processes and their associations with distress and treatment decision-making. METHOD: ). Several distress and end-of-life decision-making variables were also assessed. RESULTS: = .006). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with advanced cancer, moral processes are prevalent and influential on how they behave and make treatment decisions. Attention must be paid to how these moral processes can result in more intensive treatments than warranted. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.259
GPT teacher head0.620
Teacher spread0.361 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PsychologySame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207