MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007391018 · doi:10.1300/j074v13n03_05

Women with Osteoporosis: Strategies for Managing Agig and Chronic Illness

2001· article· en· W2007391018 on OpenAlex
Seanne Wilkins

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Women & Aging · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenialOsteoporosisQualitative researchMedicineDiversity (politics)GerontologyPsychologyPsychotherapistSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study focused on how self-concept and the meanings of aging and chronic illness provide an understanding of the diversity of strategies older women with osteoporosis use to manage their aging and chronic illness on a day-to-day basis. Twenty-eight women participated in this qualitative study through in-depth interviews and a self-administered questionnaire. While there was a range of strategies used across three groups of women, there was a predominant strategy which emerged as useful for each group: acceptance was used by women with confident selves, denial by women with contradictory selves and resignation by women with disparaged selves. An awareness of these strategies may be useful in understanding how women with osteoporosis make decisions to seek care from health and social service providers.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.350 · 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