MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Personal Empowerment Program: Addressing Health Concerns in People with Schizophrenia

2006· article· en· W138538947 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joan Klam, Myrna McLay, Diane Grabke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBody mass indexMedicineEmpowermentBlood pressureSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Weight managementGerontologyFamily medicinePhysical therapyNursingPsychiatryInternal medicineOverweight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three staff nurses in the Outpatient Schizophrenia Service of the Foothills Medical Centre in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, became concerned about the weight gain of their patients. Patients and their family members were also concerned and asking for help. Before integrating a program to address these concerns, staff first had to demonstrate that a program of this nature would be beneficial for clinic patients. Of the 75 clients screened, many presented with problems in the areas of weight, blood pressure, and fasting blood sugar and lipid levels. Although not a research study, an 8-month pilot project was implemented to address these concerns. It was hypothesized that integrating all dimensions of wellness in patient programming would have a positive effect on various defined indicators (e.g., weight, body mass index, blood pressure, and fasting blood sugar and lipid levels). Screening tests before, during, and after the 8-month project provided the physical outcome measurements. Social and psychological outcomes were described through observation and group member feedback. The positive results are significant in terms of empowering patients in the long-term management of their health.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.364 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health ServicesSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207