Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to explore a literature gap--sibling involvement in the care and support of people with schizophrenia, and to make recommendations for filling the gap. METHOD: The method used was observation and documentation of clinical notes over a ten-year period in an outpatient clinic for women with schizophrenia. Illustrative examples were selected from approximately 200 entries dealing with sibling relationships. FINDINGS: Siblings constitute an important segment of the social network of persons with schizophrenia, although they do not usually take an active part in their brother or sister's care until parents are no longer able to cope alone. The role of primary caregiver appears to be a stressful one for siblings. The closest sibling bonds were those between sisters, and in most cases, the eldest girl in the family assumed the caregiver role. This depended, however, on the family's means, values, and cultural traditions, as well as on the personal attributes and life circumstances of the siblings. Financial, human, and social capital were critical determinants of sibling involvement. Sharing responsibilities and negotiating the distribution of required caretaking tasks was often the most effective way of dealing with the burden of care giving. CONCLUSION: Although some clinical recommendations can be made, specificities that distinguish this population and the effectiveness of sibling caregiving need to be further researched.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".