MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979497689 · doi:10.1080/01621424.2012.681572

Decision-Making Process of Family Caregivers Regarding Placement of a Cognitively Impaired Elderly Relative

2012· article· en· W1979497689 on OpenAlexaff
Francine Ducharme, Mélanie Couture, Julie Lamontagne

Bibliographic record

VenueHome Health Care Services Quarterly · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Grounded theoryFamily caregiversProcess (computing)PsychologyGerontologyMedicinePsychiatryQualitative researchComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grounded theory served to develop a model of the family caregiver decision-making process regarding placement of a cognitively impaired elderly relative. Eighteen caregivers were interviewed every 6 months over an average 20 months. Results show the process is activated when the caregiver or a health care professional introduces the possibility of placement. The caregiver's assessment of the pros and cons of placement is modulated primarily by interactions with the formal and informal social network. Three types of longitudinal trajectory emerged from the data suggesting avenues of intervention to support caregivers during this painful process.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.334 · 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.

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

Citations48
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHome Health Care Services QuarterlySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207