MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W107006923

Book review : Popular mythology

2001· article· en· W107006923 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Michael MacKenzie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Palliative careMythologyReading (process)MedicineNursingHistoryLawPolitical scienceClassics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meeting death: in hospital, hospice, and at home Heather Robertson McClelland & Stewart, Toronto; 2000 352 pp. $34.99 (cloth) ISBN 0-7710-7562-6 I quite enjoyed reading this book, in which Heather Robertson recounts her experience caring for her dying father in Winnipeg in the mid-1990s. She relates a not uncommon story of fear, fatigue and frustration, much of which derived from a lack of good explanations, clear direction and assistance for her father and herself. This experience prompted her to examine the experience of death and dying in hospital, hospice and at home across Canada. And, to put this experience in a wider context, she visited a hospice facility in Uganda, dropping in to speak with Dame Cecily Saunders, founder of St. Christopher's Hospice in London on her way there. What she found was what most of us already know: the delivery of coordinated programs for the management of dying patients, including support for their families, is inconsistent across this country. What does exist is often misunderstood by patients, family, health professionals and society as a whole. Whatever path we travel, we all end up at the same destination: death. Many of us are not going to go quickly or quietly, and the process of our dying may be complicated and difficult. Robertson doubts our society's commitment to ensuring that our final days, months or years are as enjoyable and comfortable as possible. She also questions why so few resources are devoted to making palliative care programs available. Throughout the book she explores her own prejudices toward palliative care, her own fears and concerns regarding her parents and their deaths, and the many complications and changes we all go through in trying to come to grips with our mortality. Her book relates many patients' unfortunate stories. Often, these are stories of needlessly heightened anxiety and pain, missed or misleading diagnoses or prognoses, a lack of awareness of community resources by patients and families, and a lack of available expertise. She also describes many places and programs where the delivery of care and provision of support are excellent, but sadly notes that even some of our most well-established programs are being jeopardized by financial stress. As a family doctor who does palliative care consulting part time, I found that this book reaffirmed my own experience. We need to do a better job as citizens to ensure that our society is educated about the processes of dying and that programs to support patients and families are available and put to good use. Robertson sums up her feelings as she walks through the door of a hospice: Why am I here? Because the oncologist's promise to my father — you can die at home — was never fulfilled. [This hospice] is committed to supporting people with life-threatening illnesses within the comfort of their homes and families. I believe in that. I believe that it's cruel and cowardly to abandon the sick, and the dying are sick people who are getting sicker. I believe that all the sick have a right to expert, appropriate medical care, including nursing, for free. I know from experience that family members need instruction, reassurance, and companionship. I hope that if I can be there for someone else, someone will be there for me. I like the nautical term standing watch. Robertson's journey seems to have allowed her to gain some inner peace. Her book will help readers on their own journey with dying loved ones — not only in making peace with death, but in helping to ensure that “standing watch” is given the societal importance it deserves.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0610.003

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.371 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207