MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086344489 · doi:10.1080/17533010802527977

Metaphors of loss and transition: An appreciative inquiry

2009· article· en· W2086344489 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueArts & Health · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsAppreciative inquiryThe artsHealth careThematic analysisNarrativeNarrative inquirySociologyPopulationPsychologyQualitative researchPublic relationsPedagogySocial sciencePolitical scienceVisual artsArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this qualitative research study, we have used the arts-based research methodology, Appreciative Inquiry, to conduct a broadly based thematic and narrative analysis of art, loss/transition, and healing in formal/institutional and informal/family healthcare settings. Drawing on 21 loosely structured 1-hour interviews with African, British, Canadian and US caregivers, we have identified 13 overlapping themes of loss and healing. We use these themes to assess the broad scope of art in formal and informal care and palliation; to embed loss as an intrinsic health issue; and to consider art's capacity to offer insight and resolution in professional/family care partnerships as well as population health. We suggest that experiential and narrative data offer as valid an "evidence base" as quantitative data to explore the many critical dimensions of art-for-health theory and practice. Our findings underscore the vital and welcome interaction of art and science in global healthcare practice, education, research and policy. Keywords: appreciative inquiryartlosspalliative care Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the following agencies for generous support of their research into death education, palliative care, and the arts: The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) (Lander, Citation2007–2010) and The National Collaborating Centre for Determinants of Health, Canada (NCC-DH) (Graham-Pole & Lander, Citation2007–2008). Notes 1. From the Brothers Grimm's earlier version of "Little Red Riding Hood" retrieved August 11, 2008 from D.L. Ashliman, http://www.pitt.edu/∼dash/type0333.html 2. We resonate with the term "care partners", which we first heard in this film, because it empowers individuals and communities to take control over determinants of their health, as first advocated in the CitationWHO's Ottawa charter of health promotion (Citation1986). 3. We have borrowed from Edmund Carpenter's distinction between preservable and evanescent art to propose the idea of a "preservable–evanescent continuum" inherent in the art of caregiving (Carpenter, Citation2004; Lander & Graham-Pole, Citation2008b).

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.331 · 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