MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2423328711 · doi:10.1177/082585970301900105

The Impact on Families of a Children's Hospice Program

2003· article· en· W2423328711 on OpenAlexaff
Betty Davies, John B. Collins, Rose Steele, Ingrid Pipke, Karen Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Care · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHospice careFormative assessmentFocus groupProgram evaluationNursingAction (physics)Participatory action researchPsychologyMedicineMedical educationFamily medicinePalliative careSociologyPedagogyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pediatric hospice is a relatively new development in the field of hospice care. This article reports on an evaluation project that examined the effect of the Canuck Place children's hospice program on the families it served during its first two and a half years of operation. Using the principles of participatory action research, data were collected from individual interviews, focus groups, and mail-out surveys of families who used the program. Sixteen categories of hospice program effect were found to summarize how families regarded, used, and assessed their experiences. Families overwhelmingly endorsed the Canuck Place program. They also provided helpful suggestions for improvement and growth, particularly during the program's formative years. Recommendations are made with a view to promoting and solidifying the ongoing success of the Canuck Place program, as well as of children's hospice programs in general.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative CareSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207