MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065724104 · doi:10.1002/nur.10040

Wives giving care to husbands with alzheimer's disease: A process of interpretive caring

2002· article· en· W2065724104 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Nursing & Health · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaGriefSet (abstract data type)PsychologyGrounded theoryPopulationSocial psychologySpouseProcess (computing)DiseaseDevelopmental psychologyPsychotherapistQualitative researchMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wives giving care to spouses with dementia are a particularly vulnerable segment of the caregiving population. In this article a grounded theory study of 20 such wives is described, with their experiences explained as a process of interpretive caring. Wives began the process by either seeing changes in their husbands or recognizing changes in their work. Following this, the wives moved on to a phase of drawing inferences about what they observed and then took over their husbands' roles and responsibilities. These changes prompted the wives to rewrite identities for their husbands that incorporated the dementia and to rewrite identities for themselves to reflect their new roles, abilities, and strengths. Finally, the wives set about constructing a new daily life to sustain both partners. This process is neutral and allows for positive aspects of caring to be considered along with grief and frustration.

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 score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.408 · 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