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
BACKGROUND: Although multiple interventional approaches to reduce perceived burden among caregivers of the frail elderly have been investigated for over a decade, the effectiveness of those interventions and the benefits of group versus individual interventions are largely unclear. OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis was undertaken to (a) assess the effectiveness of group and individual interventions on decreasing burden of caregivers of the frail elderly, and (b) identify factors with potential influence on the magnitude of the effects. METHOD: Computerized literature searches and manual searches of published true and quasi-experimental studies with control groups were performed. A coding form was developed to record methodological and other study characteristics, including study design, attrition rate, and reliability and validity of the measures. RESULTS: Eighteen group and eight individual interventional studies published from 1985 to 2000 were included. For group interventions, the sample size for individual studies ranged from 20 to 486, with a total of 1,970. The weighted mean effect size was 0.41 (95% CI: 0.32 to 0.51), indicating a significant positive treatment effect. A significant homogeneity test (Q(17) = 56.37, p <.0001) indicated that there were variations in effect sizes among the studies attributable to study characteristics. The effect size in the 11 true experimental studies was smaller (M: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.37) but still existed. For individual interventions, the sample sizes ranged from 16 to 168, with a total of 472. The weighted effect sizes were homogeneous with a mean of 0.48 (95% CI: 0.30 to 0.67), indicating a positive treatment effect. DISCUSSION: Available evidence supports the premise that both group and individual interventions reduce perceived burden, however, this evidence is inconclusive. Further studies of large scale and high quality designs are needed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.010 |
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