MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The 15-minute family interview: a family health strategy tool

2013· article· en· W1990138044 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsFamily healthNursingFamily medicinePsychologyGerontologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 15-minute family interview is a condensed form of the Calgary Family Assessment and Intervention Models (CFAM and CFIM) that aims to contribute to the establishment of a therapeutic relationship between nurses and family and to implement interventions to promote health and suffering relief, even during brief interactions. This study investigated the experience of nurses from the Family Health Strategy (FHS) who used the 15-minute interview on postpartum home. The qualitative research was conducted in three stages: participants' training program, utilization of the 15-minute family interview by participants, and interviews with nurses. The data were collected through semistructured interviews with eight nurses. The thematic analysis revealed two main themes: dealing with the challenge of a new practice and evaluating the assignment. This work shows that this tool can be used to deepen relationships between nurses and families in the Family Health Strategy.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.272 · 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