MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W64432480 · doi:10.1177/082585970702300105

Staff Stress, Work Satisfaction, and Death Attitudes on an Oncology Palliative Care Unit, and on a Medical and Radiation Oncology Inpatient Unit

2007· article· en· W64432480 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

VenueJournal of Palliative Care · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnit (ring theory)MedicinePalliative careNursingRadiation oncologyOncologyJob satisfactionWork (physics)Family medicineInternal medicinePsychologyRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Professional caregivers for cancer patients are at high risk for work-related stress, but it is not clear how this relates to exposure to death and dying, and to professional satisfaction. This study compares work-related stress and staff satisfaction on an academic acute palliative care unit (PCU) with that on a medical and radiation oncology inpatient unit (OIU) at the same cancer centre. PCU staff tended to report less work stress-particularly related to terminal care-than those on the OIU, and higher work satisfaction and team support. PCU staff were more likely to perceive their work experience as having "positively altered their attitude to death" (p = 0.007). These results show that a supportive team environment can exist on an academic PCU and suggest that support currently offered to PCU staff in terms of caring for terminally ill patients should also be extended to those working in general oncology 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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.348 · 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