Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractDeath is a universal experience that has often been underrepresented in discussion between loved ones and the healthcare system. Given the need for support throughout all aspects of end-of-life care, an emerging paradigm shift shows Compassionate Communities as a new standard for placing responsibility back in the community and promoting respectful and compassionate care. Development of Compassionate Communities promotes quality end-of-life care designed to meet the individualized needs of the dying as well as their caregivers. RésuméLa mort est une expérience universelle qui a souvent été sous-représentée lors de discussions entre les proches d’une personne mourante et le système de soins de santé. Étant donné le besoin de soutien au niveau des diverses facettes des soins de fin de vie, un changement émergent de paradigme démontre que les Communautés bienveillantes sont dorénavant la norme pour confier à nouveau la responsabilité aux communautés, et pour promouvoir des soins respectueux et compatissants. Le développement des Communautés Bienveillantes promeut des soins de fin de vie de qualité, conçus pour répondre aux besoins particuliers des personnes mourantes ainsi que de leurs aides.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".