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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HUMANIZATION ON THE END OF LIFE In this paper, we present conclusions of the research “Life’s quality and palliative care. A Humanizating perspective on the end of life”. This research project has as it purpose: to made a compilation of perceptions of users with terminal illnesses -life quality, accessibility, satisfaction of attention in different intervention techniques in palliative care. The research design is case study. We test with McGill questionnaire for life quality (MQOL). Also methodology includes interviews and focus groups. 71 MQOL questionnaires were applied, 57% of population are women, who rate life quality as “good” (6.2 average). 84,5% of patients remarks that their lives had been worth to be lived. From the perspective of PC, life quality is related to positive and negative aspects of life that are expressed or not by patients. We analyze tensions between humanization perspective and inclusion of technology at the end of life. Action research process allowed worth-while meeting between patients and researchers. 80% of patients had experienced higher perception on life quality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it