The Impact of the Document International Work Group in Death, Dying and Bereavement: Assumptions and Principles Underlying Standards for Terminal Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reflects on the development and impact of the International Workgroup on Death, Dying and Bereavement's (IWG) pivotal document on The Assumptions and Principles Underlying Standards for Terminal Care. It was at the Ars Moriendi meetings in Columbia, Maryland that the author first met Bob and Bunny Kastenbaum. The meeting led to the development of IWG and the first task of this group was the development of the "Standards" document. The initial document reflected the pioneering work already being done by Kastenbaum and others on the committee and then was formative in the development of other documents such as the National Hospice Association Standards. Participants in the original workgroup were asked for their reflections on the significance of the document and the literature was surveyed to assess the impact of the "Standards" document on the field.
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 | 0.151 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.037 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".