MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1824568058 · doi:10.1177/1533317515594507

Caring for a Person With Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment

2015· article· en· W1824568058 on OpenAlexaff
S. Woolmore-Goodwin, Marita Kloseck, Aleksandra Zecevic, Jennifer Fogarty, Iris Gutmanis

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Alzheimer s Disease & Other Dementias® · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversitySt Joseph's Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLifeworldPsychologySituational ethicsMeaning (existential)CognitionCognitive impairmentIdentity (music)DementiaDevelopmental psychologyDiseasePsychotherapistSocial psychologyMedicinePsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While much of the literature on caregiver burden has focused on caregiving for people living with Alzheimer's disease (AD) there is little information on the experience of caring for a loved one living with amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment (aMCI), the group most likely to convert to AD. A hermeneutic phenomenological approach was used to understand the organizing principles that give experiences of being form and meaning in the lifeworld. Study findings highlight the precarious nature of caregiver role acquisition and the heterogeneity that is present among informal care providers. Specifically, the findings suggest that the wearing of multiple situational masks is required by the carer to cope with accumulated progressive losses suffered as they continually adjust to their new and evolving carer identity. Support groups specific to the carers of those living with aMCI are needed in an effort to remove these masks and to validate this unique caregiving experience.

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)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Alzheimer s Disease & Other Dementias®Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207