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
, she identified a glaring gap in our understanding of how people cope with death, both on the part of the terminally ill patients that face death and as the clinicians who care for these patients. Now, 50 years later, a substantial and ever-growing body of research has identified "best practices" for end of life care and provides confirmation and support for many of the therapeutic practices originally recommended by Dr. Kübler-Ross. This paper reviews the empirical study of psychological well-being and distress at the end of life. Specifically, we review what has been learned from studies of patient desire for hastened death and the early debates around physician assisted suicide, as well as demonstrating how these studies, informed by existential principles, have led to the development of manualized psychotherapies for patients with advanced disease. The ultimate goal of these interventions has been to attenuate suffering and help terminally ill patients and their families maintain a sense of dignity, meaning, and peace as they approach the end of life. Two well-established, empirically supported psychotherapies for patients at the end of life, Dignity Therapy and Meaning Centered Psychotherapy are reviewed in detail.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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