MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005093874 · doi:10.1177/1084822314535089

Got Volunteers? The Selection, Training, Roles, and Impact of Hospice Palliative Care Volunteers in Canada’s Community-Based Volunteer Programs

2014· article· en· W2005093874 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHome Health Care Management & Practice · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingPalliative careMedicineFamily caregiversHospice carePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides a brief overview of the selection, training, roles, and impact on family caregivers of community-based hospice palliative care volunteers in Canada. In many Canadian communities, carefully selected and well-trained volunteers are available to provide emotional support, companionship, practical assistance, and other kinds of help and comfort to dying persons and their families, mostly at home. Unfortunately, these services are often underutilized. Anecdotal and empirical evidence suggests that lack of awareness and/or understanding of this beneficial community resource is a major reason for the underutilization of volunteers. Education is the key to promoting awareness. Hopefully, this article will serve to inform both the general public and health care professionals about the volunteers’ background, preparation, roles, and impact on patients and family caregivers.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.335 · 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