Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this concept analysis paper is to delineate the meaning of good death in long term care (LTC) settings and examine its implications for nursing. The Walker and Avant (2011) method was chosen for this analysis. An in depth literature review identifies uses of the concept and determines the defining attributes of the good death. This paper also illustrates case presentations, antecedents, consequences, empirical referents and implications for clinical practice to clarify the concept of 'good death' in this population. In LTC, death is experienced frequently and is considered the ultimate outcome for most admissions. Much of the existing research on end-of-life care has focused on community dwelling cancer patients whose death trajectory is predictable and who may remain cognitively intact until actively dying. In contrast, the LTC population is older and more likely to suffer from dementia and experience chronic illness for long periods prior to death, and they follow a less predictable death trajectory. In this century, death became the province of older people and the assurance of a good death became the responsibility of those caring for them.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".