Providing care for siblings of children on hospice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric hospice care (PHC) is an ultimately complicated medical service that involves a diverse range of specialized interventions at multiple levels.Practice in this area requires a holistic approach that addresses medical, social, cultural, and financial challenges within the atmosphere of a dying child.Compared to other fields of medicine, the discipline of hospice care for children purposefully embraces the whole family, besides the patient.This is one of the reasons that professionals consider it as a philosophy, rather than a medical procedure or intervention (García-Baquero Merino 2018).However, the major focus of medical literature in this field is on patient and the health care team (Koorn et al. 2020).The next center of attention in a considerable number of studies is headed toward the parents (Boyden et al. 2021).Despite the fact that PHC is a relatively new chapter in the history of modern medicine, the number of scientific and academic publications on this topic is considerably high.In this vast and constantly augmenting pool of information, one specific area has been significantly neglected (Winger et al. 2020).This missing piece of the puzzle belongs to the siblings of the dying children. Challenges of the siblingsUnfortunately, adequate data for the demography of this population are not available.However, a logical presumption leads us to classify them at child-or pre-adulthood age groups.With this assumption, a number of life-and soul-threatening challenges can be counted for them that require certain measures for prevention or diminution.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.002 |
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".