MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Assessment of Social Support in People With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

2002· article· en· W2059051478 on OpenAlexafffund
Gloria Joachim

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology Nursing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSchool of Nursing, University of British ColumbiaNorthwestern University
KeywordsSocial supportInflammatory bowel diseaseDiseaseUlcerative colitisTest (biology)MedicineSample (material)Informed consentPsychologyInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this descriptive study was to assess the perceived level of social support in a sample of people with inflammatory bowel disease. This assessment was to serve as the basis for the development and evaluation of a program of social support. The Personal Resource Questionnaire (PRQ-85), which measures perceived level of social support, was mailed to all members (n = 300) of the Northwestern Society for Intestinal Research. Adults who met the eligibility criteria were invited to participate. Questionnaires and consent forms were completed and returned by 97 subjects. Results indicated that subjects would use a variety of resources if confronted with situations that required social support. The perceived level of social support was high, with mean scores for this inflammatory bowel disease sample reported at 143.86 of a possible 175. A two-tailed t-test suggests there is no significant difference in perceived level of social support between those subjects with Crohn disease and those with ulcerative colitis at the 0.05 level of significance. Because the level of social support was so high in this sample, plans to develop a program of support were abandoned. The meaning of these results including an analysis of the scores and a critique of the questionnaire are discussed.

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)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.377 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations19
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterology NursingSame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207