MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167280765 · doi:10.1515/ijpt-2019-0041

Liberating Hope in the Context of Pediatric Care at the End of Life

2021· article· en· W3167280765 on OpenAlex
Elaine T. Champagne

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Practical Theology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeCompetence (human resources)Meaning (existential)PsychologySociologyValue (mathematics)EpistemologyAestheticsEnvironmental ethicsPsychoanalysisDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPsychotherapistPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The spiritual care of dying children and their families requires both sensitivity and competence. Parents – and adults, in general – not only recognize an intrinsic value in children, but also see them as important symbols of hope and as promise for the future. Hence, hope may be challenged when a child is facing death. From the field of spiritual and practical theology, this research attempts to correlate the experience of children and families, and Christian sources on hope. Particular attention is given to the importance of bodies and space, desires and fears, as well as to the role of narratives in order to deepen the meaning of hope in situations that seem bereft of it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.369 · 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