Circumstances surrounding stroke onset: symbolic meaning of time factors related to numbers and days of the week
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the circumstances surrounding the onset of stroke, and especially the symbolic meaning of time factors related to numbers and days of the week. METHOD: Phenomenological qualitative study involving individual interviews conducted 5-8 weeks post-stroke. The audiotaped interviews were transcribed, then comprehensively coded by two team members, and summaries of each case were written. Since this was a secondary analysis, special attention was paid to the significance of themes, numbers and days of the week when analyzing the summaries and transcripts. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 37 participants (mean age 56.3 ± 11.9 years, 60% male). Five themes were identified with respect to the meaning attributed to numbers: (1) personal events, (2) historical events, (3) annual events, (4) age, and (5) avoidance. Themes identified as being associated with days of the week were work, leisure activities, household chores and medical tests/appointments. CONCLUSION: The impact of internalised emotions related to these perceptions can be quite significant. This study suggests that health professionals should personalise the secondary prevention of strokes by considering clients holistically and also give clients the opportunity to freely express their feelings about the meaning of time factors to foster awareness of their own perceptions. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: The use of checklists only for stroke secondary prevention does not allow taking into account psychosocial factors as potential precipitating factors. An open dialogue about personal circumstances starting on the date and day the stroke happened enabled the emergence of meaningful themes. As relationships emerged as the overarching essential theme, quality of relationships could be addressed in rehabilitation post-stroke and thus potentially contribute to prevent stroke recurrence.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".