MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129565479 · doi:10.1177/1049909112453643

Holding on to What You Have Got

2012· article· en· W2129565479 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Claxton‐Oldfield, Richard Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine® · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In all, 119 hospice palliative care volunteers from 3 community-based hospice programs completed the Volunteer Retention Questionnaire (VRQ), a 33-item survey designed for this study. The VRQ asks volunteers to rate the importance of each item to their decision to continue volunteering. The items that received the highest mean importance ratings included enjoying the work they do, feeling adequately prepared/trained to perform their role, and learning from their patients' experiences/listening to their patients' life stories. Being recognized (eg, pins for years of service or being profiled in the hospice newsletter), receiving phone calls/cards from their volunteer coordinator on special occasions, and being reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses were among the items that received the lowest mean importance ratings. Suggestions for improving volunteer retention are 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®Same topicNonprofit Sector and VolunteeringFrench-language works237,207