Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Chronic illness is well researched. Broadly, empirical enquiry has focused on either determinants of behaviors or exploring lived experiences. This paper attempts to advance understandings of the lived experience of multimorbidity in broader cultural and structural settings. METHODS: Twenty-three people in their early 50s were recruited from a community health survey in Scotland. The participants had 4 or more chronic illnesses and were interviewed twice. Key concepts of Bourdieu were applied to the data set RESULTS: The analysis presented here is organized around 4 sections: 1) Habitus, capitals and the ill body; 2) Relational positioning; 3) Illness and symbolic violence; 4) The GP as dispenser of capitals. Applying Bourdieu's theory to the accounts highlighted how broader cultural structures worked their way into personal illness narratives and illustrated how living with multimorbidity is a dialectic of structure and agency. DISCUSSION: Interventions and support for those with multimorbidity need to take into account the tensions of opposing habitus underpinning medical encounters and the ongoing negotiation of structure and agency which is integral to living with chronic illness and underpins illness actions such as help-seeking and self-managing.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".