MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166286006 · doi:10.1177/0733464811405047

Providing End-of-Life Care in Care Homes for Older People

2011· article· en· W2166286006 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Gerontology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnd-of-life careNursingMedicineOlder peopleQualitative researchPalliative careGerontologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study aimed to explore the views of care home staff (CHS) and community nurses (CNs) on providing end-of-life care (EOLC) in care homes. Participants were randomly selected and qualitative interviews conducted with 80 CHS and 10 CNs. Themes emerging from the data included the following: The meaning of EOLC; starting EOLC; dying in the care home; stress of providing EOLC; improving EOLC; and the role of the CN. CHS felt that planning for the end of life was important before residents reached the dying phase, which some found difficult to determine. Although CHS wished to avoid residents being transferred to hospital to die, they acknowledged that improvements in their skills and the resources available to them were needed to manage EOLC effectively. CNs were critical of the EOLC provided in some care homes, reporting tensions over their relationship with CHS. As the number of older people who die in care homes increases, there is a need to overcome these barriers to provide good EOLC.

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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.270 · 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