Bridging the Distance: Communicating to Distance Family Members during Palliative Care
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communication within families can be a critical concern for a person diagnosed with a life-limiting illness. \nAs the patient is faced with decisions about their care, family members are also faced with decisions about their supporting role during this emotional time. Access to information—or lack of access to information—can be a key factor in the ability to feel connected to a loved one, as they experience decline at end-of-life. \n \nAdded to the complexity of connection and decision- making at end-of-life is an increasingly aging demographic; a changing family structure, no longer defined by traditional roles and geographic proximity; and a Canadian society that is unable, or unwilling, to discuss death and dying. \n \nA design research approach, supported by systems thinking and future shifts, is used to better understand the communication needs of family members at a distance during palliative care. The project also explores a complex problem, rooted in what it means to be human: to live life, and to accept the death of our loved ones and ourselves.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 it