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 OpenAlexaff
JoAnn Perry

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.062
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations58
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in Nursing & HealthSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207