MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120377889 · doi:10.1177/0733464805277976

Quality of Life Following Stroke: Negotiating Disability, Identity, and Resources

2005· article· en· W2120377889 on OpenAlexaff
Philippa Clarke, Sandra E. Black

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Gerontology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality of life (healthcare)SalientIdentity (music)Identity negotiationNegotiationPsychologyStroke (engine)CognitionQuality (philosophy)GerontologyMedicineSociologyComputer sciencePsychiatryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Residual physical and cognitive impairments following a stroke can pose a significant threat to a survivor’s quality of life. Yet, there is not always a direct one-to-one correlation between functional disability and subjective quality of life. This research investigated the complexity of factors that influence quality of life after stroke, using qualitative interviews. Results indicate that a stroke has a significant impact on the quality of life of survivors, but some individuals find ways to adapt to their functional disabilities and report a high quality of life. Common elements of this process consist of reordering priorities to focus on those activities considered most salient to an individual’s identity; then drawing on existing resources, including health services and social supports, to maintain a customary activity, even in a modified form, retaining salient aspects of the individual’s identity and maintaining a sense of continuity in his or her life.

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)0.009
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.356
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 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

Citations130
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied GerontologySame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207