MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1497235880 · doi:10.7939/r3827p

Transforming hope: How elderly palliative patients live with hope.

2009· article· en· W1497235880 on OpenAlex
Wendy Duggleby, Karen Wright

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicOptimism, Hope, and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careMeaning (existential)Psychological interventionGrounded theoryFoundation (evidence)MedicineLife reviewPsychologyNursingPsychotherapistGerontologyQualitative researchSociologyAlternative medicinePolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hope is important to palliative patients; however, the process by which these patients live with hope is unknown. The purpose of this study was to describe, using a grounded theory approach, the processes by which palliative patients live with hope. Sixteen interviews were conducted with 10 home-care palliative patients (mean age 75 years) in their homes using open-ended questions. The participants defined their hope as expectations such as not suffering more and having a peaceful death.They described their main concern as wanting to "live with hope" and they achieved this through the basic social process of transforming hope. Transforming hope involved acknowledging "life the way it is", searching for meaning, and positive reappraisal. The results of this study provide a foundation for future research and the development of interventions to engender hope in older palliative patients.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.223 · 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