MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W109378510

Perceptions regarding death and dying of individuals with chronic kidney disease.

2012· article· en· W109378510 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anita Molzahn, Laurene Sheilds, Anne Bruce, Kelli Stajduhar, Kara Schick‐Makaroff, Rosanne Beuthin, Sheryl Shermak

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeMedicineKidney diseasePerceptionDiseaseQualitative researchDialysisCause of deathGerontologyPsychiatryPsychologyInternal medicineSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research explores perceptions regarding death and dying among people with chronic kidney disease. The methodology for the study was narrative inquiry informed by social constructivism. In-depth narrative interviews were conducted on two occasions with 14 participants. The participants included 10 men and 4 women (mean age of 66) who were treated in a mid-size Canadian city. Four themes relating to death and dying emerged from the data: awareness of death as a consequence of kidney failure, close calls, contemplation of suicide and/or withdrawal from dialysis, and preparing for death while living life. From the findings, it appeared that participants were very aware of the risk of dying from their illness, experienced serious health crises, and planned for their deaths. They were comfortable in discussing death and dying and acknowledged withdrawal from dialysis as an option.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→