MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979142067 · doi:10.3402/qhw.v9.23534

“How can I still be me?”: Strategies to maintain a sense of self in the context of a neurological condition

2014· article· en· W1979142067 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kerstin Roger, Monika Wetzel, Susan Hutchinson, Tanya Packer, Joan Versnel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
FundersDalhousie UniversityPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsCognitive reframingPsychology of selfDenialIdentity (music)PsychologyContext (archaeology)ReciprocalSocial psychologyArticulation (sociology)SelfQualitative researchSense of agencyDevelopmental psychologySociologyPsychotherapistAestheticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Living with a Neurological Condition (LINC) study was part of the National Population Health Study of Neurological Conditions conducted in Canada. This article describes empirical original qualitative data collected in the third and final phase of this study and examines how individuals living with a neurological condition maintain continuity of their sense of self, with a particular focus on their strategies. Fifteen interviews were analysed for this paper. Emerging strategies for maintaining sense of self include: (1) avoidance and denial, (2) cognitive reframing, (3) articulation of the self through imagined positive identity, (4) strategies that reconnect to identity in the past, (5) adjusting and altering goals, (6) spiritual activities, (7) humour, (8) comparison with others: identity as shaped through social constructs, and (9) creating communities: a reciprocal reflection of self.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.390 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-BeingSame topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207