MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119274094 · doi:10.1177/1049732303259618

Health Care Communication Issues in Multiple Sclerosis: An Interpretive Description

2004· article· en· W2119274094 on OpenAlex

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

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careHealth communicationSet (abstract data type)Qualitative researchMedicineFocus groupPsychologyNursingSociologyCommunicationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Communication between persons with chronic illness and their professional health care providers is a critical element of appropriate health care. As the field of health care communication evolves, it becomes apparent that aspects of the illness experience shared by those affected by specific diseases might be a source of particular insight into what constitutes effective or appropriate communications. This interpretive description of health care communication issues in multiple sclerosis was based on qualitative secondary analysis of a set of in-depth interviews and focus groups conducted with 12 persons with longstanding MS experience. Analysis of their accounts illustrates an intricate interplay between common features within the disease trajectory and the communications that are perceived as helpful or unhelpful to living well with this chronic illness. From the analysis of these findings, the authors draw interpretations regarding what might be considered communication competencies for those who care for patients with this disease.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.602
GPT teacher head0.602
Teacher spread0.000 · 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