Part 1: Home-based family caregiving at the end of life: a comprehensive review of published quantitative research (1998-2008)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family caregivers are crucial for supporting home death. We reviewed published qualitative research on home-based family caregiving at end of life (1998-2008), synthesizing key findings and identifying gaps where additional research is needed. Multiple databases were searched and abstracts reviewed for a focus on family caregiving and palliative care; full articles were reviewed to extract data for this review. In total, 105 articles were included. Findings are presented in the following areas: the caregiving experience and contextual features; supporting family caregivers at end of life; caregiving roles and decision-making; and rewards, meaning and coping. We noted a lack of definitional clarity; a reliance on interview methods and descriptive, thematic analyses, and a relative lack of diversity of patient conditions. Research needs are identified in several areas, including the bereavement experience, caregiver ambivalence, access to services, caregiver meaning-making, and relational and contextual influences on family caregiving at end of life.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it