Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intention of this workshop is to provide an opportunity to explore the various dimensions of clinical practice known to support and enhance coping in adolescents living with a life-threatening illness. The objectives are to: 1) Present recent research findings related to the future thinking activities of adolescents in pediatric palliative care; 2) Acknowledge that these findings stretch us as clinicians to “sit with” and \"create time for\" the youth’s exploration of future in the context of an anticipated shortened life; 3) Discuss several cases and provide experiential activities that can prepare the clinician in ‘being with’ and ‘staying present’ to youth who are exploring their future that remains unknown by virtue of the trajectory of illness.The workshop will be broken down into three parts. In the first 30 minutes the findings from a doctoral study aimed at examining the future thinking of adolescents living with a progressive life-threatening neurodegenerative illness will be presented and discussed. Secondly, consideration will be given to how clinicians can mindfully prepare themselves for supporting adolescents and to consider aspects of the clinical self in our work with this population and finally, through both storytelling and the facilitation of active experiential activities, the presenters will share stories and ideas that have been integrated into existing practices.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".