MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211689527 · doi:10.1097/cnj.0000000000000912

No One Dies Alone

2021· article· en· W3211689527 on OpenAlexaff
Marcia DePolo, Tonia R. Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Christian Nursing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsPrivacy Analytics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolunteerFeelingPsychologyValue (mathematics)Social psychologyMedicineNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: No One Dies Alone is a hospital-based volunteer program that provides a caring human presence at the end of life for patients when nurses cannot remain at the bedside. No One Dies Alone volunteers offer peace of mind for families who can know their loved ones will not die alone. Volunteers live out the second greatest commandment of loving your neighbor as yourself by providing a calming presence, voice, touch, support, and validation of feelings. A case study illustrates the value of a volunteer's presence.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1000.032

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Christian NursingSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207