Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bereavement, a specific kind of grief in response to a death, has been embedded in human history, in cultural patterns, with ritual, ceremony, and community kindness being the mainstay of grief support. The advent of professionalised grief counselling has seen the increasing domination of professional support as the best way to support someone bereaved, with a consequent loss of the varied forms of community support. The availability of professional grief counselling is limited, with only a small percentage of bereaved people accessing it or needing to access it. In this article, we argue for a realignment of professional grief services, strengthening community actions, and reorientation of health care in keeping with the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Community sources of grief support are being reinvented in multiple ways. Professional services can develop links and relationships with these communities of support. A population-based public health approach to bereavement care is needed. This can only be achieved through communities and professionals working together. This partnership working underlines three implications for practice. These are (I) love and friendship must be the bedrock of support for grief and loss and the strengthening of these supports should be the priority for all therapeutic and social actions, (II) the multiple and varied community and civic sector sources of grief support should be the mainstay of the bereaved, and (III) bereavement professionals should work in the context of community, linking their clients with sustainable community supports.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".