MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183923298

HUMANIZACIÓN AL FINAL DE LA VIDA.

2009· article· es· W2183923298 on OpenAlex
Verónica Inés

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueI Congreso Internacional de Investigación y Práctica Profesional en Psicología XVI Jornadas de Investigación Quinto Encuentro de Investigadores en Psicología del MERCOSUR · 2009
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative and Oncologic Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careHumanitiesPhilosophyArtMedicineNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0060.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.322 · 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