Hope Tree: An Interactive Art Installation to Facilitate the Expression of Hope in a Hospice Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals confronting a terminal illness can experience intense psychological distress. Previous research has shown that hope can enhance one's ability to acknowledge, accept, and fight a terminal illness. Patients can continue to have hope or be hopeful, even in the face of a terminal illness. Can participation in a creative writing practice improve the expression of hope in a hospice setting? METHODS: In this program evaluation, each expressed hope placed on the "Hope Tree" was independently coded by all research team members utilizing inductive content analysis. Overall themes were derived using a constant comparative approach and arranged into overarching themes based on consensus. RESULTS: Eight major themes emerged from the data: "Peace," "Dreams," "Total well-being," "Acknowledgment of loss," "Relationships," "Hospice care," "Spirituality," and "Dichotomies." CONCLUSION: The Hope Tree is a creative art project that can be used within a hospice environment to promote hope among family members and the health-care professionals who care for patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".