MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792835906 · doi:10.1177/1054137318764682

Learning From Experiences of Feeling Heard: A Qualitative Study of Hospice Volunteers

2018· article· en· W2792835906 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Mundle

Bibliographic record

VenueIllness Crisis & Loss · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsProvidence Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningFeelingPsychologyPalliative careQualitative researchNursingMedical educationReflective listeningEmpathyHospice careQuality (philosophy)MedicinePsychotherapistSocial psychologyInformational listeningSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What does it feel like when someone really listens to you? Data generated in qualitative interviews with ten individual hospice volunteers illuminate the quality of listening they received (and did not receive) from key role models in their lives. Analysis suggests that occasions of receiving listening are rare and pivotal events that can be used to learn more about how to listen to others, particularly in end-of-life care. The article closes with some recommendations for enhancing emotional support for hospice and palliative care volunteers, and for more training in reflective practice, including new approaches to teaching active empathic listening and communication skills.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIllness Crisis & LossSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207