“A ESPERANÇA E QUALIDADE DE VIDA DOS DOENTES EM CUIDADOS PALIATIVOS”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ai\nm\ns\n:\nIdentify the level of hope and quality of life \n(QO\nL\n)\n of patients living with chronic advanced ill-\nness; Determine relationship between hope and \nQO\nL in palliative patients; \nC\norrelate hope, \nQO\nL, famil\ny\nstructure and spiritual /religious beliefs.\nM\net\nh\no\nd:\nA \nC\nross sectional co-relational study was conducted. The sample consisted of 132 pallia\n-\ntive care patients: 56,1% men, aged between 29-96 \n(\nMean=67,13; \nS\nD=12,02\n)\n. The instrument consist\n-\ned in a structured interview composed of socio-demographic, famil\ny\n, professional and clinical data\n;\nHerth Hope Index - 12 item instrument designed to measure hope; McGill QOL Questionnaire. W\ne\napplied it in palliative care units, day care and home care palliative patients, from \nS\neptember 2009 t\no\nF\ne\nb\nruary \n2010.\nR\nesu\nlt\ns\n:\nPatients evidenced good levels of hope \n(\nmean=3,23;Min=1,44; M\ná\nx=4,0; \nS\nD=0,51\n)\n and \nQO\nL in al\nl\nd\nimensions \n(\nMeans between 5,44 and 8,42; \nS\nD between 1,93 and 2,92\n)\n. There is a positive correlatio\nn\nbetween \nQO\nL and hope revealed in all dimensions of both variables \n(\nr between 0,431 and 0,678\n;\np\n≤\n0,01). Family structure is not statistically significant correlated with \nQO\nL or hope; neither are spiri\n-\ntual /religious beliefs. \nDiscussion\n/C\nonclusion:\nIn spite of their illness, palliative patients indicated good hope and \nQO\nL\nlevels. This might be related to support they are given by palliative care teams and \nf\namily.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".