Advance care planning in general practice and beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PART II.Cluster-randomized controlled trial of the complex ACP-GP intervention for patient with chronic, life-limiting illness in Belgian general practice Chapter 1 Facilitating advance care planning in the general practice setting for patients with a chronic, life-limiting illness: protocol for a phase-III cluster-randomized controlled trial and process evaluation of the ACP-GP intervention Chapter 2 Advance care planning engagement in patients with chronic, life-limiting illness: baseline findings from a cluster-randomised controlled trial in primary care Chapter 3 Complex advance care planning intervention in general practice (ACP-GP): cluster-randomised controlled trial Chapter 4 How Advance Care Planning (ACP-GP) was implemented in Belgian general practice in the context of a cluster RCT: a process evaluation using the RE-AIM framework PART III.International insights into the implementation of ACP interventions Chapter 5 Complex advance care planning interventions for chronic serious illness: how do they work: a scoping review Chapter 6 Clinicians' experiences implementing an advance care planning pathway in two Canadian provinces: a qualitative study PART IV.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".