Using conjoint interviews to research the lived experience of elderly rural couples
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
Understanding the experiences of elderly rural couples in accessing health services can assist nurses and other health professionals in their roles as advocates, service providers, educators, programme planners, and policy makers. In this paper, Frances Racher explores phenomenology as methodology, and its fit with the unstructured conjoint interview as method, in planning for a study to seek knowledge of elderly rural couples' experiences in accessing health services. It is argued that phenomenology is an appropriate approach for gaining an understanding of the experiences of elderly rural couples. In addition, conjoint interviews provide opportunity for the partners to negotiate and jointly construct their responses, when the couple is the unit of study and the couple experience is the topic of interest. As health professionals strive to situate themselves in the everyday worlds of their clients, they are integral in the development and application of new research methods such as the conjoint interview.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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