The Impact of Volunteering in Hospice Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to examine the impact of hospice palliative care work on volunteers' lives. In-depth interviews were conducted with 23 direct-patient care volunteers. More than half of the volunteers became involved in hospice palliative care because of their own experiences with family members and/or friends who have died. Most of the volunteers reported that they were different now or had changed in some way since they have been volunteering (e.g., they had grown in some way, have learned how to keep things in perspective). In addition, most of the volunteers felt that their outlook on life had changed since they started volunteering (e.g., they were more accepting of death, and they learned the importance of living one day at a time). Volunteers reported doing a number of different things to prevent compassion fatigue or burnout (e.g., reading a book, listening to music, talking to others, and taking time off from volunteering). Most of the volunteers said that they would tell anyone who might be thinking of volunteering in hospice palliative care that it is a very rewarding activity and/or that they should try it. Finally, many of the volunteers offered suggestions for doing things differently in their programs.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".