MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405624138 · doi:10.29173/hsi413

Hindsight is 2020: Lessons Learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic on Death, Dying, and Grief

2021· article· en· W4405624138 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Reanne Booker

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Science Inquiry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGriefHindsight biasPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Visitor patternDisenfranchised griefSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakPsychologyLonelinessTraumatic griefMedicineDiseasePsychiatrySocial psychologyVirologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)OutbreakPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has led to significant changes not only in the way we live, but also in the way we die. Visitor restrictions mean that patients are dying alone, and that families and loved ones are often unable to say goodbye or visit in the days and hours preceding death. Further, limitations on various cultural norms and rituals following death, such as the ability to hold funerals or wakes, are also influencing the experience of death and dying. The impact of these changes on bereavement and grief remains unknown, but it has been speculated that such changes may lead to adverse bereavement and grief experiences. There is an urgent need to establish a national grief strategy to ensure sufficient resources and supports for people experiencing the loss of a loved one, be it from coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) or another cause, during and beyond the pandemic.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.014
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.357
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.140 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Science InquirySame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207