Bibliographic record
Abstract
Making end-of-life decisions is a painful and difficult process; one that can be intensified by cultural differences between physicians and their patients. The objective of this study was to examine attitudes of Chinese seniors towards end-of-life decisions. We conducted a qualitative survey in a Chinese community centre in Toronto, Canada. Face-to-face interviews, in Cantonese, were conducted with 40 Chinese seniors 65 years of age or older. Respondents based their end-of-life decision making on the following factors: hope, suffering and burden, the future, emotional harmony, the life cycle, respect for doctors, and the family. Respondents rejected advance directives. Respondents' attitudes toward end-of-life decision making can be understood through the lens of values from Confucianist, Buddhist and Taoist traditions. Health care workers can best achieve quality end-of-life care--and address the cultural differences that may arise--by focusing primarily on understanding the perspectives of patients and their families, and by continually striving for balanced and open communication at all stages of the caregiving process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".