MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111502546 · doi:10.1177/1074840707307917

Interactive Use of Genograms and Ecomaps in Family Caregiving Research

2007· review· en· W2111502546 on OpenAlex
Gwen R. Rempel, Anne Neufeld, Kaysi Eastlick Kushner

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

VenueJournal of Family Nursing · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenogramContext (archaeology)PsychologyQualitative researchDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article argues for the concurrent and comparative use of genograms and ecomaps in family caregiving research. A genogram is a graphic portrayal of the composition and structure of one's family and an ecomap is a graphic portrayal of personal and family social relationships. Although development and utilization of genograms and ecomaps is rooted in clinical practice with families, as research tools they provide data that can enhance the researcher's understanding of family member experiences. In qualitative research of the supportive and nonsupportive interactions experienced by male family caregivers, the interactive use of genograms and ecomaps (a) facilitated increased understanding of social networks as a context for caregiving, (b) promoted a relational process between researcher and participant, and (c) uncovered findings such as unrealized potential in the participant's social network that may not be revealed with the use of the genogram or ecomap alone, or the noncomparative use of both.

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 categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
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 head0.844
GPT teacher head0.651
Teacher spread0.193 · 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