Episodes of Relationship Completion Through Song in Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study utilized a combination of intrinsic and instrumental case studies to describe the experience of four dying persons and their significant relations, as they engaged in music therapy sessions designed with the goal of facilitating relationship completion. The four primary participants were inpatients of the Baycrest palliative care program who were diagnosed with a terminal illness and a life expectancy of less than six months. Two spouses who were involved in music therapy sessions were co-participants.\n\tI developed four case studies to represent each of the rich and detailed stories. Through the use of narrative research methods I was able to describe, interpret, and understand the complexity held within the multiple data sources that informed each case study. Data sources included: music created, utilized, recorded, and/or discussed in music therapy sessions; discussions during music therapy sessions; the researcher’s field notes; formal notes placed in the participant’s medical charts; the formal written assessment; transcriptions of audio-taped music therapy sessions; interviews; interview transcriptions; artistic pieces crafted by myself that emerged from the experiences of the participants as reflected in their interviews, and weekly participation in sessions which were verified by the participants; and other artistic material.\n\tThe rich knowledge that emerged from the individual case studies informed a cross-case analysis where global themes were identified from a thematic analysis of participants’ experiences; and process motifs arising from the progression of participant engagement in music therapy are described. Global themes included: love; loss; gratitude; growth/transformation; courage/strength; and goodbye. The five process motifs that emerged were: \n(1) music therapy helps and was valued as a means of sharing the participants’ perceptions of their situation. \n(2) music therapy provides a safe place to become aware of, explore, and express feelings. \n(3) music enhances communication. \n(4) music therapy techniques provide creative avenues for self-expression. \n(5) music therapy provided a vehicle for revisiting and reminiscing. \n\nThe thesis concludes with a summary of the knowledge revealed and a discussion of implications for music therapists and health care professionals, as well as a presentation of final thoughts and reflections on my role as researcher in this study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".