MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400079858 · doi:10.1080/07481187.2024.2370460

A scoping review of theories and models applied for grief and bereavement projects

2024· review· en· W4400079858 on OpenAlexaff
Christina Yeni Kustanti, Christantie Effendy, Nelsensius Klau Fauk, Priyani Haryanti, Hidayat Arifin, Isnanto Isnanto, Ninik Yunitri, Faniea Maawati, Yan Adi Wibawa, Tiara Octary, Nurlia Ikaningtyas

Bibliographic record

VenueDeath Studies · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGriefPsychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This scoping review aimed to identify the theory-based studies related to grief and bereavement in palliative care. The investigation was carried out by searching seven databases and conducting manual searches. The search procedure yielded 51 scholarly papers, which revealed 33 theories or models and 37 instruments. The theories and models can be classified into distinct categories, namely grief patterns and coping mechanisms. This study can be a valuable reference for future research endeavors, particularly those employing deductive methodologies. It offers guidance in selecting appropriate theories or models that can be applied to further studies.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDeath StudiesSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207