MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W145341717 · doi:10.1177/082585970502100404

Children's Perspectives of a Pediatric Hospice Program

2005· article· en· W145341717 on OpenAlexaffabout
Betty Davies, John B. Collins, Rose Steele, Karen Cook, Amy Brenner, Stephany Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Care · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative carePsychologyNursingPerspective (graphical)MedicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little attention has been paid to documenting the experiences of children in pediatric palliative care programs, both those who are ill and their siblings. In this evaluation study of Canuck Place, a Canadian, free-standing hospice program, 26 ill children and 41 of their siblings completed mail-out questionnaires. In addition, four ill children and 10 siblings participated in face-to-face interviews. Results indicate that nearly all children were enthusiastic about the program's activities and the physical environment at Canuck Place. Engaging activities, physical amenities, and the social climate promoted by staff, volunteers, and other families were important contributors to the children's satisfaction. Suggestions for better serving adolescents included: a wider range of age-appropriate activities, games, and toys--especially for teens and older children; more trips and tours outside the building and around town; and caring staff and volunteers who are "attentive-in-the-moment". From the children's perspective, the key to Canuck Place's success is its social climate of caring, safety, friendliness, acceptance, and variety.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations35
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative CareSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207