MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308834303 · doi:10.1080/07481187.2022.2142326

Passing through end-of-life suffering: Possible or not? Results from a qualitative inquiry

2022· article· en· W4308834303 on OpenAlexaff
Serge Daneault, Deborah Ummel, Andréanne Côté, Jérôme Leclerc-Loiselle, F. Vinit, Mehdi Azri, Philippe Laperle, Sylvie Gendron

Bibliographic record

VenueDeath Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisQualitative researchPhenomenonPsychologyDiseaseQualitative analysisPalliative careDevelopmental psychologyPsychoanalysisSocial psychologyPsychotherapistMedicineNursingSociologyEpistemologyPathologySocial sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to understand the factors associated with "passing through suffering" in terminal illness. We interviewed 19 adults diagnosed with terminal disease in palliative stage. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Four axes of understanding were generated. In the first, participants discussed the will to "feel alive" despite the disease. The second, the process of acceptance, is based on lucidity and on letting go. The third highlights the importance of relationships with others. The fourth axis describes the consequences of this passage through suffering. This study highlights a phenomenon of adapting to suffering.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.013
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.576
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.036 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDeath StudiesSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207