MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981107337 · doi:10.1300/j067v25n03_05

Innovative Models for Developing Post-Masters Curriculum in End-of-Life Care

2005· article· en· W1981107337 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 Teaching in Social Work · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial workEnd-of-life careCurriculumCertificateMedical educationPsychologyWork (physics)NursingSocial lifePedagogyGerontologyMedicinePalliative careSociologyComputer scienceEngineeringPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Given two million deaths annually in the U. S., social work education and training have been cited as woefully inadequate in end-of-life care. In response, two of the authors developed two post-Masters programs in end-of-life care for social work. This paper describes their curricula and the methods used to evaluate both programs, including measurements of the participants' self-efficacy before and after the programs. The analysis of evaluative data from the classroom and first-year field experiences of each program shows that participants increased their levels of skill, knowledge, values, and self-efficacy. Key Words: End-of-life caresocial work curriculumpost-masters certificate trainingcurriculum on end-of-life careleadership in end-of-life 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.320 · 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