MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041513494 · doi:10.1017/s1478951509000145

Personal reflections on love, death and suffering: My narrative of the final days of my husband's life

2009· article· en· W2041513494 on OpenAlexaffabout
Claire Turenne Sjolander

Bibliographic record

VenuePalliative & Supportive Care · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStairsNarrativeAuntYesterdayWonderPsychologyMedicinePsychoanalysisHistorySocial psychologyArtArt historyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

John was weak, something that had begun quite suddenly the day before, and he needed my help in order to lift himself off the couch or to climb the stairs or to maneuver throughout the house. That morning, I had to cancel an invitation to accompany my parents on a trip out of town; John was too weak for me to leave him alone. I had been looking forward to leaving behind my responsibilities for a bit ever since my parents had suggested that I needed a break—and the prospect of a short trip into the Ottawa Valley for a few hours, a chance to live a little out from under the weight of everything at home, was so enticing. The decision not to go was both completely inescapable and incredibly hard, and I sobbed for a long time after getting off the phone with my Dad. For the first time since John had become ill, I let myself tell him how unfair this disease was and how its presence in our lives was affecting not only him, but me—how I felt that I no longer existed in any meaningful sense apart from the illness, how my entire days were defined by the need to manage his illness, his almost daily trips to the hospital, the constant appointments, the endless challenge of trying to get some nutrition into him, the need to take care of everything around the house and yet to stay on top of work.

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 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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalliative & Supportive CareSame topicEmpathy and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207