MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404038538 · doi:10.1001/amajethics.2024.881

Why Prospective Bereavement Counseling Is Crucial for Peace-Finding After Loss

2024· article· en· W4404038538 on OpenAlexaff
Ramona Fernandez

Bibliographic record

VenueThe AMA Journal of Ethic · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychotherapistPsychologyGrief

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bereavement counseling is often offered as a referral following an adverse event or after identification of lingering grief. This article proposes the value of prospective bereavement counseling when a person can reasonably anticipate loss to support anticipatory grief and facilitate supportive continuous care planning for patients experiencing loss. This article positions bereavement counseling as care aimed at finding peace by offering a framework of dimensions of peace, opportunities to foster peace in clinically important moments, and guiding questions to facilitate this clinical outcome in health care settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AMA Journal of EthicSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207