MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7108655054 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/a7z4k

Core Outcome Sets and Minimum Datasets for palliative and end-of-life care : a scoping review protocol

2025· other· W7108655054 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2025
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec
KeywordsProtocol (science)Outcome (game theory)Core (optical fiber)Palliative careStakeholderData collection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This registration summarizes the protocol for a scoping review on core outcome sets and minimum datasets in palliative and end-of-life care. The review will map outcome domains and subdomains, examine how they were identified and selected, and describe stakeholder involvement and characteristics. The study follows JBI methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidance, with searches conducted in major databases on 03-12-2025. Full details on eligibility criteria, search strategy, outcomes, data extraction, and data synthesis are provided in the attached protocol document.

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)0.172
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.210
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1720.210
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.009
Bibliometrics0.0190.019
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0070.009
Research integrity0.0090.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1880.051

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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.318 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreProtocol

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207