MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W16015250 · doi:10.1177/082585970402000405

Family Perceptions of End-of-Life Care in Long-Term Care Facilities

2004· article· en· W16015250 on OpenAlex

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

VenueJournal of Palliative Care · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStaffingFamily memberDignityNursingFamily caregiversEnd-of-life careLong-term carePsychologyPerceptionPalliative careTerminal careFamily medicineScale (ratio)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study examined the utility of the Family Perception of Care Scale (FPCS), which consists of four subscales: resident care, family support, communication, and rooming. This instrument was developed for the purposes of this study. Overall, family members were satisfied with end-of-life care. Satisfaction did not have a statistically significant relationship to family and resident characteristics. Survey questions with the highest number of low satisfaction ratings included staffing levels, updating families and involving them in care planning, and decision making. Family members considered pain control an important priority, followed by comfort care that included caring for a family member with dignity and sensitivity. Family members also valued it when staff were able to inform them that the death of their family member was near. Place of death was significantly associated with satisfaction, family members being more satisfied with end-of-life care when their family member died in the LTC facility as opposed to in hospital.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.319 · 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