MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2975038411 · doi:10.1017/s1478951519000798

Adapting the Portuguese dignity question framework for adolescents: ages 10–18

2019· article· en· W2975038411 on OpenAlex

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

VenuePalliative & Supportive Care · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPatient Dignity and Privacy
Canadian institutionsResearch Institute in Oncology and HematologyCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortugueseDignityGerontologyMedicinePsychologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyLawLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Dignity therapy (DT) is well established in adult populations, and it is likely that it could benefit younger people. This study aimed to adapt the adult Portuguese DT question framework for adolescents (DT-QF-Adol) (ages 10-18). METHOD: Five stages were followed: (1) the Portuguese DT-QF for adults was adapted for adolescents with the original author's collaboration, (2) an expert committee provided feedback on the adapted version, (3) an initial consensus version of the DT-QF-Adol was created, (4) expert committee consult affirmed final consensus, and (5) validation stage with a sample of 17 adolescents followed in ambulatory psychology clinic. RESULTS: DT's original author endorsed the final Portuguese DT-QF-Adol, reinforcing that it captures the fundamental dimensions of DT. There was 100% agreement on the final consensus version and defined age group (10-18 years old). Twenty adolescents were invited to participate, and 17 were included after informed consent was obtained; 53% were female. The average age was 12.7 years. The interviewed adolescents reported that the DT-QF-Adol was clear, and they did not identify any ambiguity or difficulty in answering any of the questions. They assumed that this information could positively affect the way parents and friends see and cared for them, permitting others to understand their concerns and preferences. Participants felt that the DT-QF-Adol could be a good starting point for a conversation with their loved ones. Although they did not consider vital for health professionals to access their answers, they strongly felt that the DT-QF-Adol might be essential to sick adolescents and they would recommend it to others. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: We developed a DT-QF of nine questions for Portuguese adolescents (DT-QF-Adol), coined Protocolo de Perguntas da Terapia da Dignidade para Adolescentes - 10-18 anos. This tool can potentially be considered a good addition for pediatric palliative care.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.300 · 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