Facing off-time mortality: Leaving a legacy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 65.80 years; 66% women; 77.94% White; 48.53% college-educated) with serious and terminal cancer receiving outpatient palliative care. They narrated legacies in semistructured interviews and completed measures of illness acknowledgment. We developed a novel construct, potential years of life to lose, calculated as the difference between chronological age and national life expectancy at birth. Coders, trained to high reliability, content-analyzed legacy narratives for communion with follow-up coding for aftermath concerns. Hierarchical regression indicated that for those with more potential years of life to lose, acknowledging the severity of their illness was critical to narrating communion-rich legacies. Similarly, aftermath concerns were common in those with the most years of life to lose who were able to acknowledge the severity of their illness. Findings affirm the psychological richness of individuals' legacies in the second half of life and highlight one way they adaptively respond to the nonnormative timing of serious and terminal cancer. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".