MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2429479001 · doi:10.1177/082585970502100106

Navigating Uncharted Territory: Experiences of Families when a Child is Dying

2005· article· en· W2429479001 on OpenAlexaff
Rose Steele

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Care · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGriefGrounded theoryContext (archaeology)Emotional healthPsychologyNursingSociocultural evolutionHealth carePalliative careQualitative researchDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePsychotherapistMental healthSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this grounded theory study, eight families moved through a process of navigating uncharted territory as they lived with their child who was dying from a neurodegenerative illness. The emotions of fear, uncertainty, and grief gave impetus to the process. Families lived much of their lives on plateaus of relative stability, where they often felt alone and isolated from health care professionals. Periods of instability led to families dropping off the plateau. Living with a dying child had profound physical, emotional, and financial effects on families. The process was characterized by four dimensions. Parents used strategies within these dimensions to manage the physical, cognitive, and emotional work arising from the situation. These dimensions and strategies were constrained and facilitated by four intervening conditions. In addition, the process occurred within the broader context of the acute, curative health care system and the sociocultural environment. Suggestions for practice and research are offered to assist health care professionals in providing optimal care to these families.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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