MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003813746 · doi:10.1136/ebn.8.4.123

Mothers of children at risk described engaging with home visitors in terms of limiting family vulnerability

2005· letter· en· W2003813746 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karen Chalmers

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingPublic healthMedicinePsychologyFamily medicineNursingSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jack SM, DiCenso A, Lohfeld L. A theory of maternal engagement with public health nurses and family visitors. J Adv Nurs 2005;49:182–90.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q How do mothers of children at risk describe the process of engaging with public health nurses (PHNs) and family visitors (FVs) in a home visiting programme? Grounded theory. Southwestern Ontario, Canada. A purposeful sample of 20 English speaking mothers who had received ⩾1 PHN visit and ⩾3 FV visits after they had been identified as high risk because of social or economic factors. Mothers participated in 1–3 semistructured interviews of 60–90 minutes, which addressed their experiences and expectations of engagement with PHNs and FVs. 29 interviews were conducted (11 by telephone). Interviewer field notes and client records were also reviewed. Data were analysed using open, selective, and theoretical coding. Checks for data credibility included peer debriefing and member checks by 8 participants. Mothers described feeling vulnerable because PHNs and FVs had the power to alter family structure. When mothers risked participating in home visits, they engaged in a social process to … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2Badvanced%2Bnursing%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BAdv%2BNurs%26rft.aulast%253DJack%26rft.auinit1%253DS.%2BM.%26rft.volume%253D49%26rft.issue%253D2%26rft.spage%253D182%26rft.epage%253D190%26rft.atitle%253DA%2Btheory%2Bof%2Bmaternal%2Bengagement%2Bwith%2Bpublic%2Bhealth%2Bnurses%2Band%2Bfamily%2Bvisitors.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1111%252Fj.1365-2648.2004.03278.x%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15641951%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03278.x&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15641951&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F8%2F4%2F123.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000226384400009&link_type=ISI

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), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207