Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background :Brave conversations in hospital, often facilitated by the palliative care team, lead to a discovery of what really matters if time is short.Getting married turned out to be high on the agenda for many couples where one partner is facing mortality.There has been little exploration of romance and marriage in the context of advanced illness. Method:7 deathbed weddings in a tertiary cancer centre were analysed. These had taken place over a period of 2 years. Initial conversations, subsequent arrangements, the impact on the couple, and the subsequent reactions in bereavement were explored. Demographics, illness details, reasons for the marriage and logistics of the wedding were recorded Bereaved spouses were subsequently interviewed about the meaning of the wedding. Results:6/7 weddings were identified as ‘goals’ by the palliative care team On average the time from conversation to wedding was 10 days 3/7weddings took place within 1 day of the conversation Wedding outfits ranged from pyjamas to full white wedding on a hospital ward.5/7 brides/grooms died in hospital, on average 16 days after the wedding, In terms of meaning, this ranged from legal and financial reasons, to a statement of love and connection Discussion:Momentous celebrations distracted patients, relatives and healthcare team from the daily tragedy they were immersed in. The focus became one of healing not curing. Teams were uplifted, symptoms improved.The stories reinforced the idea that self-esteem and need for connection are dominant forces even in the face of death.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".