MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110113302 · doi:10.3390/bs10110177

The Sense of Dignity at the End of Life: Reflections on Lifetime Values through the Family Photo Album

2020· article· en· W3110113302 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ines Testoni, Vera Baroni, Erika Iacona, Adriano Zamperini, Shoshi Keisari, Lucia Ronconi, Luigi Grassi

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPatient Dignity and Privacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDignitySense (electronics)Sense of humorSociologyPsychologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceLawEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study focuses on the dimensions of dignity, linking Chochinov's Dignity Therapy to Schwartz's Theory of Values. The use of family photo albums has enriched the application of dignity therapy. Seven terminal patients in home-based palliative care participated in the therapeutic intervention. To measure the effects of the intervention, we administered the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale and the Patient Dignity Inventory, then, at the end of the meetings, collected the opinions of participants, available nurses, and relatives who attended the sessions. The resulting generativity documents were then analyzed through thematic analysis, which revealed three main themes linked to both fundamental values and the dimensions of dignity: The relationship between continuity of self and myriad values in the context of family relationships; personal dignity as characterized by the values of personal success, hope, and wisdom; and hope and generativity. The fourth theme reflected the participants' final judgements on the intervention, which were highly positive and greatly encouraged further use of photographs in similar therapeutic interventions. The assessment protocol highlighted a significant decrease in tiredness amongst the participants and a trend towards a significant decrease in drowsiness after the intervention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.014
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.291
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.132 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral SciencesSame topicPatient Dignity and PrivacyFrench-language works237,207