Bibliographic record
Abstract
Desde los Cuidados Paliativos (CP) se presentan los resultados y conclusiones de la investigacion “Calidad de Vida y Cuidados Paliativos. Una perspectiva de Humanizacion al final de la vida”. Objetivo General: Relevar las percepciones de usuarios con enfermedades terminales de: calidad de vida (CV), accesibilidad, satisfaccion de la atencion en diversos dispositivos de intervencion. Diseno de investigacion: estudio de caso, centrandonos en procesos. Utilizacion del Cuestionario McGill de CV (MQOL), entrevistas a profundidad y grupo focal. 71 encuestas; 57 %femenino, valorizan la CV (promedio) 6.2 “buena”; 84,5% dice la vida ha sido muy valiosa. En CP la CV no esta en relacion con la ausencia del problema, sino con los aspectos positivos y negativos, en expresion o en silencio, de esos avatares existenciales, es netamente subjetiva. La tension en pacientes con su vida amenazada por el avance y los deterioros de la enfermedad no permite la indecision al posicionarnos como promotores de la humanizacion, la calidad y accesibilidad en el final de la vida versus la tecnologizacion de la muerte. La Investigacion-Accion permitio una intervencion en si misma de cada encuentro entre el equipo de salud/investigador y los usuarios. 80 % de pacientes han experimentado aumento en la percepcion de su CV. Palabras clave Cuidados paliativos Calidad vida ABSTRACT HUMANIZATION ON THE END OF LIFE In this paper, we present conclusions of the research “Life’s quality and palliative care. A Humanizating perspective on the end of life”. This research project has as it purpose: to made a compilation of perceptions of users with terminal illnesses -life quality, accessibility, satisfaction of attention in different intervention techniques in palliative care. The research design is case study. We test with McGill questionnaire for life quality (MQOL). Also methodology includes interviews and focus groups. 71 MQOL questionnaires were applied, 57% of population are women, who rate life quality as “good” (6.2 average). 84,5% of patients remarks that their lives had been worth to be lived. From the perspective of PC, life quality is related to positive and negative aspects of life that are expressed or not by patients. We analyze tensions between humanization perspective and inclusion of technology at the end of life. Action research process allowed worth-while meeting between patients and researchers. 80% of patients had experienced higher perception on life quality. Key words Palliative care Life quality
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".