MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115906681 · doi:10.1177/1049732308329682

The Hope Experience of Older Bereaved Women Who Cared for a Spouse With Terminal Cancer

2009· article· en· W2115906681 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lorraine Holtslander, Wendy Duggleby

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrounded theorySpouseConstructivist grounded theoryPsychologyContext (archaeology)Terminal cancerMeaning (existential)Qualitative researchSocial psychologyPsychotherapistNursingSociologyMedicinePalliative careSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study we explore the experience and processes of hope of older women who were bereaved after caring for a spouse with terminal cancer, and we develop a tentative, emerging theory of their hope experience. We used constructivist grounded theory methods. We conducted 30 open-ended, in-depth, audiotaped interviews with 13 western Canadian women, aged 60 to 79 years, within the 1st year of bereavement, and collected 12 hope diaries. Data were analyzed using constant comparative analysis. Participants defined hope as a gradual process of regaining inner strength and building self-confidence to make sense of their completely changed situations. They were learning to stay positive and move ahead with their lives. The participants' main concern was losing hope, which they dealt with by searching for new hope through finding balance, new perspectives, and new meaning and purpose. The emerging theory is conceptualized as a spiral within the complex social context of bereavement after caregiving.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.301
GPT teacher head0.614
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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations76
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207