Families of patients with mental illness revised their ideas of what it means to live a “normal” life
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it