MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036460875 · doi:10.1177/1049909106294882

Death Anxiety and Death Competency: The Impact of a Palliative Care Volunteer Training Program

2007· article· en· W2036460875 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Claxton‐Oldfield, Maggie Crain, Jane Claxton-Oldfield

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine® · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Canadian institutionsTantramar Wetlands CentreSackville Memorial HospitalMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGriefPalliative careDeath anxietyDeath educationMedicineCoping (psychology)Fear of deathVolunteerThanatologyAnxietyNursingClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Before and immediately after the 2 most recent offerings of a local palliative care volunteer training program, 17 participants completed the Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale and Bugen's Coping with Death Scale. The training program consisted of approximately 27 hours of training presented in 3-hour blocks during a 9-week period. Topics included the philosophy and goals of palliative care, spiritual issues from a multi-cultural and multifaith perspective, communication, the dying process, grief and bereavement, and the role of the volunteer. The results showed no differences in participants' pretraining and posttraining scores on the 4 subscales of the Fear of Death Scale. However, participants felt significantly more able to cope with death and dying after the training program than before. With proper training, volunteers will feel more prepared to handle situations involving terminal illness and death. In short, they will be more effective in their work with dying patients and their families.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations67
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®Same topicDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionFrench-language works237,207