Becoming normal: a grounded theory study on the emotional process of stroke recovery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this grounded theory study was to examine the emotional process of stroke recovery, personally experienced by stroke survivors. Nine stroke survivors living in Atlantic Canada participated in this study. Data collection came from formal unstructured interviews and one group interview. The central problem experienced by these stroke survivors was being less than 100%. The basic social process used to address this problem was becoming normal, which is composed of three stages: recognizing stroke will not go away, choosing to work on recovery, and working on being normal. Each stage has several phases. Being less than 100% is the emotional result of being unable to do certain things that serve to form individuals' identities. A critical finding was that physical and emotional recovery is inseparable, and recovery is directed towards regaining the ability to perform these certain things. Becoming normal was influenced both positively and negatively by the following conditions: personal strengths and attributes, past history, family support, professional support, faith and comparing self to peers. The results of this study have implications for nursing practice, nursing education and nursing research. It adds to nursing knowledge by illuminating the close relationship between physical and emotional recovery, the duration of the stroke recovery process, and the necessity for survivors to make a deliberate choice to recover.
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 | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".