Interactive Use of Genograms and Ecomaps in Family Caregiving Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.038 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".