The Reflection Room <sup>®</sup> : Moving from Death-Avoiding to Death-Discussing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed, implemented, and evaluated a participatory arts-based storytelling initiative called the Reflection Room project. Our aim was to investigate if visiting a Reflection Room, (1) creates opportunities for disclosing emotions and processing thoughts, (2) increases comfort discussing dying and death, and (3) supports advance care planning (ACP), conversations. In the pilot phase of the Reflection Room project, a Reflection Room was installed in 25 sites across Canada from 2016–2017. Data collection included reflection cards ( n = 463), and surveys completed by visitors upon exiting a room ( n = 271) and 3 months later ( n = 50). Analysis involved theoretically driven coding, inductive content analysis, and descriptive statistics. We found reflections contained both emotional disclosures and reflective processing. Survey data indicated visiting a Reflection Room increased comfort in thinking and talking about dying and death as well as the likelihood of engaging in ACP. In the future, we will explore the extent to which the project fosters social connections and well-being.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".