‘A Good Death’: One Hospice Chaplain’s Approach to End-of-Life Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When doctors determine patients’ life expectancy to be six months or less, patients are considered palliative. Hospice offers care for the terminally ill patient’s body, mind and spirit. As part of the hospice team, chaplains support the spiritual needs of the patient and their family – a challenging and rewarding role. Dr Madison Cawdor shares his extensive experience as a United States-based hospice chaplain and explains the role’s demands, including the importance of both being present with and listening to patients while also employing an interdenominational approach (i.e. supporting regardless of religious practice). Dr Cawdor explores the role’s personal impacts, including being on call, sustained exposure to death and grief, and also the satisfaction of supporting patients. The demand for hospice care is projected to increase dramatically in the coming years, making understanding the demands of and approaches to this work crucial to facilitate both the recruitment and the retention of hospice chaplains.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".