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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0080.009
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.209
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
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