Bibliographic record
Abstract
High functioning, resilient teams do not happen by chance. Teams, similar to individuals, need to be educated, nurtured and formed over time, by a consistent vision and process. With proper team formation, the compassionate care of patients, families and colleagues can be developed, modeled and reinforced. Self-compassion is another focus to help caregivers cope with the stresses of the work and mitigate against burnout. The primary intervention which will be discussed is a regularly scheduled reflection process, e.g. 30 minutes weekly or 90 minutes monthly, with a pediatric hospice team, an inpatient palliative care team and an outpatient palliative care team. The reflection process incorporates mindful meditation, journaling, listening exercises, individual and group reflection to encourage and practice self-awareness, self-reflection, greater emotional intelligence and leadership skills. Specific tools employed include the Search Inside Yourself © Program, books by various authors, selected music, videos and personal journals. Qualitative feedback from team members, patient, family and colleague satisfaction scores has been positive. Buy-in from all team members, initially, was difficult, but over time, all team members have recognized the value of the process and have incorporated the exercises not only in their work, but in their personal lives and other roles/jobs. Other key success factors are organizational support for time for this process and individual champions to develop and lead the reflective process. The workshop will include a demonstration of exercises used in team reflections with learner participation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".