MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023627415 · doi:10.1080/00918360903005220

An Exploration of the Experience of Lesbians with Chronic Illness

2009· article· en· W2023627415 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Homosexuality · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessPsychologyChecklistQualitative researchFocus groupCoping (psychology)Qualitative propertyMental healthContent analysisClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An exploration of the challenges facing lesbians with chronic conditions and their coping strategies was investigated by examining the experiences of participants who were clients of a volunteer organization serving chronically ill lesbians. This article reports the results associated with those challenges, with its ultimate goal being and to assess the effectiveness of current services. Using the participant observation method, as employed by O'Toole (2000 O'Toole, C. J. 2000. The view from below: Developing a knowledge base about an unknown population. Sexuality and Disability, 18(3): 207–224. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), the analysis was based on multiple data sources and 10 years experience within the volunteer organization, including 3 years in direct client support. A qualitative method served as the primary focus for the study. The quantitative method preceded the qualitative method and provided limited supporting data. The total number of participants included all past and current clients, but the number participating in each data source varied. Qualitative sources included archival structured interviews (n = 69), taped interviews (n = 5-6), and extensive comments written in response to the quantitative surveys (n = 14). The quantitative measures (n = 14) included the researcher-developed Chronic Conditions Challenges Checklist (C4) and the Short Form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire ([SF-MPQ]; Melzack, 1998 Melzack, R. 1998. “The short-form McGill pain questionnaire”. In The compendium of quality of life instruments, Edited by: Salek, S. 2J:3–2J:3C. New York: Wiley. (Compiler) [Google Scholar] ). A content analysis of all data sources found a number of challenges that met the criteria of being identified in at least two data sources and across multiple participants. Challenges included those related to the disease process (i.e., pain, fatigue, and decreases in mobility) to impacts of the condition (financial security, ability to participate, support from family of origin and independence, loneliness, and issues related to mental health). Challenges were discussed in terms of those that are similar to and different from other women suffering from chronic illness, as well as their relevance to related literature.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.348 · 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