MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114076629 · doi:10.25011/cim.v36i3.19722

Burdens of Family Caregiving at the End of Life

2013· article· en· W2114076629 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychosocialFamily caregiversPalliative careMedicineNursingEnd-of-life careGerontologyPsychologyFamily medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A patient's ability to be cared for and to die at home is heavily dependent upon the efforts of family caregivers. Considerable stresses are associated with such caregiving, including physical, psychosocial and financial burdens. Research has shown that unmet needs and dissatisfaction with care can lead to negative outcomes for caregivers. While many family caregivers also report caregiving as life-enriching, some report that they would prefer alternatives to care at home, primarily because of these associated burdens. Little is known about which interventions are most effective to support family caregivers ministering palliative care at home. Well-designed studies to test promising interventions are needed, followed by studies of the best ways to implement the most effective interventions. Clinically effective practice support tools in palliative home care are warranted to identify family caregiver needs and to ensure that patients and their family caregivers have a choice about where care is provided.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.016
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 head0.382
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.060 · 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