MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970734747 · doi:10.1136/ebn.6.2.61

Families of patients with mental illness revised their ideas of what it means to live a “normal” life

2003· letter· en· W1970734747 on OpenAlexaff
Cheryl Forchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2003
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily Caregiving in Mental Illness
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental illnessPsychiatryMedicineDepression (economics)Schizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Web of sciencePsychologyMental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rose L, Mallinson RK, Walton-Moss B. A grounded theory of families responding to mental illness. West J Nurs Res2002 ; 24 : 516 –36 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: How do families manage the experience of mental illness? Grounded theory. A medical institution in the US. 29 family members (age range 18–73 y; 66% women; 66% white, 28% African-American, 7% Hispanic) of 17 patients who had schizophrenia, major depression, or bipolar disorder. Patients consented to researchers contacting their relatives. Family members had ≥1 weekly contact with patients. Most patients had a history of ≥3 hospital admissions. Three 60–90 minute semistructured interviews were planned with each family over 2 years (soon after initial contact, at 6 mo, and at 1 y). Participants were asked to talk about their experiences of the illness, observations of social or cultural issues, and thoughts about the future. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analysed using the constant comparative method. The basic social problem facing families was living with the ambiguity of mental illness. … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DWestern%2BJournal%2Bof%2BNursing%2BResearch%26rft.stitle%253DWest%2BJ%2BNurs%2BRes%26rft.aulast%253DRose%26rft.auinit1%253DL.%26rft.volume%253D24%26rft.issue%253D5%26rft.spage%253D516%26rft.epage%253D536%26rft.atitle%253DA%2BGrounded%2BTheory%2Bof%2BFamilies%2BResponding%2Bto%2BMental%2BIllness%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1177%252F019394590202400505%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12148833%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/019394590202400505&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12148833&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F6%2F2%2F61.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000176822600004&link_type=ISI

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicFamily Caregiving in Mental IllnessFrench-language works237,207