MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W332133566 · doi:10.1177/082585970402000205

Family Responses to Declining Intake and Weight Loss in a Terminally Ill Relative. Part 1: Fighting Back

2004· article· en· W332133566 on OpenAlex

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

VenueJournal of Palliative Care · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsSt. Boniface HospitalWinnipeg Regional Health AuthorityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminally illWeight lossMedicinePalliative carePsychologyGerontologyNursingObesityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We recently completed a grounded theory study examining nutritional care experiences in advanced cancer from the perspective of patients (n=13), families (n=23), and health care providers (n=11) (1). That work generated important information about adult family members' perceptions and behaviour regarding the nutritional care their terminally ill adult relative received while hospitalized on an inpatient palliative care unit. An overview of the inductively derived model that emerged from that work has been reported elsewhere (2). This article provides a more detailed description of one of the major sub-processes of the model regarding family member responses to declining oral intake and weight loss in a terminally ill relative-the sub-process of "fighting back: it's best to eat." The strategies family members use when fighting back, and the consequences of these strategies for patients, family members, and health care providers are reported. Implications for practice and research are provided.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.308 · 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