Comparative study of social work in the hospice care in Czech Republic and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main focus of this diploma thesis is on comparison of social workers agendas between Czech Republic and Canada in HPC. The main goal is to describe the most essential and desirable roles and competencies of social workers in hospices. The first thematical block is describing the history of hospices in both countries, their values, and formes of help. Into this block is belonging also the topic of financial funding and goals of the hospice associations for the future. Next chapters are devoted to the field of social work. We are examining the qualification, the financial adequacy, the prestige of this field and the specifications for effective motivation of these specialists. The third block is extensively examining the roles and competencies of social workers HPC. These results we are trying to verify in the survey part. We are asking both, the social workers as well as the public on the level of essentiality of every single social worker role. Key words: Hospice Palliative Care, Comparison, The Financial Funding, Social Services, Qualification of Social Workers, The Prestige of Social Work, The Roles and Competencies, The Financial Adequacy
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".