Rethinking Suffering: Allowing for Suffering that is Intrinsic at End of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dilemma so central to the work of providers of palliative and end-of-life care is the paradox of their professional and ethical duty to try to relieve suffering and the limitations of so doing. While the capacity to sit with suffering at the end of life is critical to clinical work, the idea that some intrinsic suffering cannot necessarily always be relieved may model for patients and families that suffering can be borne. Clinicians who encounter unrelievable suffering may feel a sense of failure, helplessness, moral distress, and compassion fatigue. While tolerating suffering runs counter to the aims of palliative care, acknowledging it, bearing it, and validating it may actually help patients and families to do the same. "Sitting with suffering" signals a paradigm shift within the discipline of palliative care, as it asks clinicians to rethink their role in being able to relieve some forms of psychosocial suffering intrinsic to dying.
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 | 0.032 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".