Exploring and Supporting Parents’ Stories of Loss in the NICU: A Narrative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Death is no stranger to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Extreme prematurity, congenital abnormalities, and other complexities can turn what was hoped to be a very exciting moment in a family's life into one of despair and grief. There are many infants that not only do not survive but also have a medicalized death necessitating complex decision-making, weighing quality versus duration of life. We can learn from the stories of parents who chose palliative care for their children. In this narrative inquiry study, we elicited bereaved parents' stories and reflections on the lives of their children and the care they received in the NICU. From a narrative ethics perspective, their stories speak to normative aspects of parenting, decision-making, and receiving medical care that affect their moral sense-making of their NICU experiences as well as their longer-term living with the loss of their children. Their stories express the importance of having had meaningful time with their children, maintaining direct and frequent communication, acknowledging uncertainty, and emphasizing compassion as methods of providing support to parents as they navigate their bereavement.
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 | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".