MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100245268 · doi:10.1002/nur.21504

“Flying by the seat of our pants”: What dementia family caregivers want in an advanced caregiver training program

2012· article· en· W2100245268 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 · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsCollege & Association of Registered Nurses of AlbertaRegistered Nurses' Association of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaCaregiver stressFamily caregiversPsychological interventionFocus groupIntervention (counseling)PsychologyGerontologyResource (disambiguation)Caregiver burdenNursingMedicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although dementia caregiver stress and burden can be ameliorated with intervention, such interventions typically occur in specific caregiving contexts and at specific points in the progression of the dementing illness. We explored the ongoing learning needs and preferences of previously trained caregivers. Descriptive analysis of caregiver survey responses (N = 168) informed follow-up focus group interviews conducted with 26 family caregivers. Content analysis of focus group data showed that caregivers enjoyed the interactive problem-solving of the group related to preparing for the future, shaping the troubling behavior of the care recipient, reshaping the resource team, and caring for themselves. These findings support the need for advanced training as caregivers move through the trajectory of caring for persons with dementia.

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)0.006
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.359 · 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