Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study compared the manner in which the dying, their caregivers, and the general population cope with loneliness. The patients were recruited in an oncological hospice in Israel, and despite being on their deathbed agreed to participate in the study. Thirty-seven cancer stricken patients, 78 caregivers, and 128 participants from the general population volunteered to partake in the study. They answered, anonymously, a 34-item yes/no questionnaire and were asked to endorse those items that described their strategies of successfully coping with loneliness. The dimensions of the coping strategies included: Reflection and acceptance which was defined as being by one's self and becoming acquainted with one's fears, wishes, and needs; Self-development and understanding, was defined as the increased self-intimacy, renewal, and growth; Social support network; Distancing and denial which was defined as denial of the experience and pain of loneliness through the use of alcohol or street drugs; Religion and faith; and Increased activity, the active pursuit of daily responsibilities. Results suggested the dying patient, his or her caregiver, and the general population cope with loneliness differently. Dying patients scored significantly lower than the general population on the Social support network and on the Increased activity subscales. The trend was reversed on the Religion and faith subscale. The present may be the first study to examine the manner in which the dying and their caregivers cope with loneliness. As such, more research is needed to replicate the present study, using larger samples.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".