MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W213002815 · doi:10.1177/082585971202800206

Negotiating Relational Practice Patterns in Palliative Home Care

2012· article· en· W213002815 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Catherine Ward‐Griffin, Carol L. McWilliam, Abe Oudshoorn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Care · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPalliative careNursingNegotiationContext (archaeology)Variety (cybernetics)Perspective (graphical)MedicinePsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Providing palliative care in the home presents a variety of challenges for nurses and other care providers. As part of a focused ethnographic study examining client/caregiver/care-provider relationships within the socio-cultural context of home-based palliative care, this paper describes the provision of palliative care to Canadian seniors with advanced cancer from the perspective of nurses. Data were collected through in-depth interviews (n=19) with three palliative care nurses and participant observations in four households over a six-to-eight-month period. Home-based palliative care nursing was depicted in this study as a dialectical experience, revealing three relational practice patterns: making time-forfeiting time, connecting-withdrawing, and enabling-disabling. Nurses attempted to negotiate the tensions between these opposing approaches to palliative care. Study findings suggest that the sociocultural context of palliative care is not conducive to high-quality palliative care and provide several insights related to future directions for practice, policy, and research.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative CareSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207