Bibliographic record
Abstract
The final years of life present challenges for care. In middle-/high-income countries, the percentage of people of advanced age in the population is growing, and the dying process continues to become more complex and protracted. We propose that a new understanding of care, 'teleological care', be considered as an important response to the contemporary challenges of the final years of life. Teleological care is a philosophy of care built around the root idea of a telos (i.e. end) in three senses: (1) the end of life as a temporal limit; (2) the ends of life as the individual's purpose and meaning; (3) the end of life as the meaning of life as a whole. In its practice, teleological care adheres to principles of (1) fidelity of practitioner to patient; (2) generalism of practitioners; and (3) coordination of care within existing services. With this philosophy and practice, care is administered by generalist health care professionals arranging for flow between care that attempts to reverse, stop or slow the disease process when appropriate, with care to address symptoms, and with care that responds to the difficulties of dying. Teleological care involves already existing programmes in roughly their present forms, serving as an overarching layer of organization added to the existing systems. Teleological care refocuses the concept of care to the patient's perspective with emotional, spiritual and practical support for facing the end of life, and a space for narrative and reflection within a wider circle of care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".