Understanding Death and Dying Among the Low-German-Speaking Mennonites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Closed religious groups are a part of our society, but oftentimes there is a limited understanding of their unique beliefs and practices in relation to death and dying. Based on an existing clinical relationship with one such group—the Low-German-speaking Mennonites—a research program has been developed and implemented to address issues noted by health professionals and social service providers who wish to more effectively care for this population but lack an understanding of their beliefs and practices. This article reports on a study on death and dying that was conducted to attend to this knowledge gap and inform clinicians about ways to provide appropriate care for the dying. The qualitative interviews that were conducted with this unique religious group revealed their experiences of death and dying and their practices to honor this transition. Participants believed that suffering is related to the person’s relationship with God, and a slow death will provide time to atone for one’s sins. Providing care that is more closely aligned with these perspectives can be accomplished if providers are willing to approach this group in a respectful manner that allows for open discussion so that decisions based on faith are made.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".