Ten minutes to midnight: a narrative inquiry of people living with dying with advanced copd and their family members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To explore how people with end stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and their family members describe living in the face of impending death.Methods: A narrative inquiry was undertaken using a social constructionist perspective. Data were collected in 2017–18 in two in-depth interviews, lasting 90 to 120 minutes approximately 3–4 months apart, with a telephone follow-up 2–3 months later. Thematic analysis was conducted including analysis within and across participants.Results: Sixteen people with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and seven family members participated. For both people with the disease and family members, six key themes/storylines emerged including missing life, being vigilant, hope and realism, avoiding death talk, the scary dying process, and need to prepare.Conclusion: This study highlighted six key storylines about death and dying with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for people with the illness and their family members. The participants with the illness and their family members held similar perceptions about end of life. More supports are needed for people with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and their family members in living with their illness while ensuring that they experience a “good 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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".