MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392509150 · doi:10.1177/09500170241234592

‘A Good Death’: One Hospice Chaplain’s Approach to End-of-Life Care

2024· article· en· W4392509150 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWork Employment and Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHospice careActive listeningGriefPalliative careEnd-of-life careLife expectancyTerminally illNursingPsychologyMedicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it