MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W156688534 · doi:10.1177/082585970402000403

The Impact on Families of Respite Care in a Quicken's Hospice Program

2004· article· en· W156688534 on OpenAlexaffabout
Betty Davies, Rose Steele, John B. Collins, Karen Cook, Stephany Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Care · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespite careNursingPalliative careHospice careMedicineTerminally illFamily medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With increasing trends towards home care of children with even the most complex conditions and care requirements, respite becomes critical in improving the quality of life for terminally ill children and their families. This article reports on the respite component of an evaluation project that examined the effect of the Canuck Place children's hospice program on the families it served during its first 30 months of operation. Canuck Place, located in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, is the first free-standing children's hospice in North America. Findings are derived from mail-out surveys to 144 families, face-to-face interviews with 18 families, and separate questionnaires specifically directed to parents who had used Canuck Place respite services. Sixty-five parents responded to the respite questions. They cited a wide range of benefits to the ill child, the child's siblings, and to the parents themselves; they also offered a few cautions. Our discussion focuses on three "lessons learned" from this unique investigation of respite within pediatric hospice 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations42
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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