MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W152310345 · doi:10.1177/082585970702300104

Developing a Living with Hope Program for Caregivers of Family Members with Advanced Cancer

2007· article· en· W152310345 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
FieldPsychology
TopicOptimism, Hope, and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)Intervention (counseling)Psychological interventionFamily caregiversTriangulationPilot testQuality of life (healthcare)PsychologyNursingPsychotherapistMedicineGerontologyApplied psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A theory-based intervention, the Living with Hope Program (LWHP), was designed to foster hope in caregivers of family members with advanced cancer. The LWHP was developed from qualitative data and using Harding and Higginson's recommendations for family caregiver interventions as a guide. The LHWP is: (a) focused specifically on the caregivers themselves, (b) theory based, (c) feasible, (d) acceptable, and (e) pilot tested. The program consists of a hope video and a hope activity titled Stories of the Present. A mixed-method, concurrent triangulation, pre- and post-test design was used to pilot test the LWHP The results of the pilot test suggest the LWHP is easy to use, flexible, and feasible, and shows promise in increasing hope and quality of life scores in family caregivers.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.343 · 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