Diversity in rural communities: palliative care for the low German Mennonites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiculturalism is an important concept in Canada although there has been limited examination of its meaning in rural settings. To expand this knowledge base, this article presents the Low German (LG) Mennonites as a case example within a context of providing palliative care to this diverse population which is one of the Anabaptist groups that practice adult baptism and focus on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Findings from a mixed methods study and a graduate thesis conducted within the framework of this study focus on three main ideas to understand the perspectives related to death and dying among this group: faith-based healthcare facilities; family, community and mutual aid; and, keeping the dying connected. Implications of these concepts to health and social service providers are included. Canada has prided itself in being a multicultural country, but there has been little in-depth examination of cultural or religious diversity in rural settings. This article presents the research related to understanding death and dying among the Low German (LG) Mennonites as a case example to illustrate the complexity of providing care to a unique religious group in rural Canada. The mixed methods and qualitative research were conducted in both Canada and Mexico. The findings are presented according to the following three ideas: (1) faith-based healthcare facilities; (2) family, community and mutual aid; and, (3) keeping the dying connected. The significance of the findings for the provision of care of this group are also included. Keywords: religious diversity, Low German Mennonites, rural health, palliative care, rural community
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".