Existential Wellbeing in Palliative Care: A Paradigm of Existential Positive Psychology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article introduces existential wellbeing (EWB) as one of the most ignored but also the most important kind of wellbeing, especially for people who experience life-limiting diseases and need palliative care (Wong & Yu, 2021). This article will not only review the literature regarding the nature and practice of existential wellbeing in palliative care, but also propose a preliminary Existential Wellbeing Scale. EWB is defined as the quality-of-life characterized by living well and dying well in spite of pain, obstacles, and the shadow of death; wellbeing within the context of human suffering can only be fully understood from the perspective of existential positive psychology (EPP), dedicated to the study of sustainable wellbeing based on the foundation of transcending suffering. The basic tenets of EPP are (1) redefining positivity or wellbeing in terms of seeing and being the light in the darkness; (2) focusing on the dialectical process of navigating an adaptive balance; and (3) re-orienting one’s life attitude from egotism to self-transcendence (Wong, 2023a). More specifically, EWB depends on some combination of the following experiences: (1) Prior experience of overcoming adversity; (2) Existential intelligence (Gardner, 2020) in addressing existential concerns; (3) Existential wisdom of the soul (Wong 2022a; Wong, Ho, et al, 2023a) to achieve existential wellbeing and sustainable flourishing; (4) Spiritual wellbeing based on spiritual values such as faith, hope, and love (Wong, 2023); (5) Knowledge of meaning-focused coping (Eisenbeck et al., 2021); and (6) The new paradigm of self-transcendence (Reed & Haugan, 2021; Wong, Arslan et al., 2021; Wong, Ho et al., 2023b) to transcend and transform suffering into wellbeing and triumph.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".