MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087434286 · doi:10.1177/1359105307088140

An Alternative Framework for Understanding Women's Caregiving Stress

2008· article· en· W2087434286 on OpenAlexaff
Cyndi Brannen, Kathy Petite

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Psychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, psychology, and well-being
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent UniversityIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoping (psychology)NarrativeChecklistPsychologySocial psychologyQualitative researchClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyApplied psychologyCognitive psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we present an alternative to inventory checklist approaches to measuring coping. We utilized a qualitative approach to explore themes of problem-focused, emotion-focused and meaning-focused coping in a sample of 98 women from diverse backgrounds and caregiving situations. Their narratives reflected the ;goodness of fit' coping framework; that different strategies are more effective for stress reduction in relation to the amount of perceived control. Using a narrative approach allowed us to situate coping within the context of the caregiving experiences that the women discussed. This permits a broader understanding of how coping strategies can help women to navigate caregiving and reduce stress.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.313 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health PsychologySame topicHealth, psychology, and well-beingFrench-language works237,207