Human relationship: The forgotten dynamic in palliative care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Palliative care is a philosophy of care for individuals experiencing progressive, incurable disease. It encompasses two dynamics, science-based practice and relationship between patient, family, and health professional. Each dynamic is essential for quality palliative care, yet the requisites for each are different. METHODS: The scientific process of observation and measurement requires differentiation, distance, and detachment to fulfill its demands for objectivity, whereas relationship, unobservable and immeasurable, requires sameness, closeness, and connection of a shared humanity. It is science, however, the prevailing world-view, that shapes our thinking and consequently, influences the education and practice of health professionals. RESULTS: We explore the dynamics of science and relationship and the incongruities between them. We examine the prominence of science in palliative care and its impact on relationship. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: We contend that questioning the current emphasis of science in palliative care and discovering the joy and rewards of shared human experience will enrich the quality of life for patients, families, and health professionals.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".