Bibliographic record
Abstract
In palliative care we have the privilege to care for seriously ill people and their families. Some people value capturing their life story or illness journey on film. I have been fortunate to have been invited into the lives of many people close the end of life for a heartfelt conversation.On an interactive iPad incorporated in the poster, the recorded narrative of patients and one bereft spouse the poster audience will experience the lived experience of people close to the end of life as they reflect on their lives. The narratives will demonstrate how each lived with a new found improved quality of life in the face of increasing symptoms, declining functioning and the approaching end of life; otherwise known as healing. Topics of healing and quality of life, patient-centered care, dignity, human development, spirituality and love will be the focus of their stories. The stories lay bare the very practical, emotional, existential, and personal experience central to our provision of whole person care through palliative care. The poster audience will experience a renewed sense of the impact of a dedicated approach to whole person care as experienced through those on the receiving end.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| 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".