A Phenomenological Exploration of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery As Experienced by Three Couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the lived experiences of three couples in each of which one of the partners has undergone coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). Previous research has been largely quantitative and focused on discrete dimensions of marital quality, spousal support, or patient and spouse distress. However, few studies explored the experiences of couples as a marital dyad. This study expanded upon previous research to explore couples' experiences of bypass surgery and to examine the possibility of shared meanings about that event. Shared meaning refers to the congruent beliefs that a couple has about their CABG experience (Patterson, 1989; Radley & Green, 1986). Three couples from the Cardiac Wellness Institute of Calgary were interviewed and the transcribed interviews analyzed. The descriptive phenomenological psychological method (Giorgi, 2000) was used to identify the underlying meaning structures of the couples' experiences. The analysis revealed a single structure consisting of seven interrelated constituents describing the psychological essence of the couples' experiences of bypass surgery. The study extended the understanding of what CABG is like for a marital dyad, particularly for medical and psychological practitioners who work with CABG patients and their spouses.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".