MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116310758 · doi:10.1177/1049732309334859

Grief—Peer Dynamics: Understanding Experiences with Pediatric Multiple Sclerosis

2009· article· en· W2116310758 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer E. Thannhauser

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGriefPsychosocialMultidisciplinary approachPsychologyGrounded theoryDevelopmental psychologyPsychotherapistPeer groupTraumatic griefCognitionVariety (cybernetics)Clinical psychologyQualitative researchPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, progressive, and often debilitating disease of the central nervous system, for which there is no cure. This article provides insight into the experiences of adolescents with MS and the role of their peer relationships. Through the use of grounded theory, a preliminary theoretical model was developed for understanding the psychosocial experiences of these adolescents. Central to this framework is the interplay between the adolescents' grief and their peer relationships. Social, emotional, and cognitive manifestations of grief were expressed in response to the loss of health. Cyclical movements through grief and acceptance were demonstrated as the adolescents experienced a variety of secondary losses. Dynamic peer relationships either facilitated or impeded this process. Insight can be garnered from this study for further research and the development of multidisciplinary resources for this unique group of adolescents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.634
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.078 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations24
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207