Bibliographic record
Abstract
Palliative care is whole person care that attends to the physical, psychosocial, and spiritual needs of persons with a serious or life-limiting illness. This care is provided by a team of clinicians from several disciplines including physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. The palliative care team functions as a dynamic system whose ability to provide quality care is dependent upon the ability of the team members to form and maintain an ongoing collaborative alliance. This alliance requires that team members maintain dual commitments to both the care receivers and to their fellow team members. Just as persons with illness express the human propensity toward meaning making in the face of suffering, so palliative care teams thrive when they are supported in reflective processes that enhance their ability to find meaning in their work. Creation of and attention to team narratives and their role in team identity formation can enhance team members’ flourishing by placing team identity in the context of a larger story. Narratives of rescuing and fixing foster a sense of control and expertise while narratives of containing and healing nurture attention to mindful presence and human-to-human encounter.
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 | 0.000 | 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".