MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805059522 · doi:10.47513/mmd.v10i2.607

Relationship Completion in Palliative Care Music Therapy: Clinical Case Example-Part 1

2018· article· en· W2805059522 on OpenAlex
Amy Clements-Cortés

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMusic and Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMusic Therapy and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSingingMusic therapyPalliative carePsychologyWifeParticipant observationPsychotherapistMedicineNursingSociologyPolitical scienceManagementLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following case study represents an example of music therapy research in palliative care with a focus on relationship completion. This case of ‘Bill’, presents one of the four participant’s experience in the research study on relationship completion in palliative care. The results of Bill’s case are presented in Part II of this paper.(1) Bill received 30 individual music therapy sessions provided at three levels of practice.(2) The music therapy techniques utilized included: song choice; lyric discussion and analysis; songwriting, singing and playing pre-composed songs; life review; and song dedication. Bill’s wife (a study co-participant) also joined in the music therapy sessions towards the end of the process.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.461
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.022 · 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