MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120835698 · doi:10.1177/1473325011404622

The chaos of caregiving and hope

2011· article· en· W2120835698 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Social Work · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of GuelphUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNarrativePoetryPresentation (obstetrics)PsychosocialPsychologyNarrative inquiryResource (disambiguation)Lived experiencePsychotherapistPsychoanalysisSocial psychologyMedicineLiteratureArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hope is an important psychosocial resource that has been found to support family caregivers. In order to further understand the challenges of caregivers and their hope experience, we analyzed, using Cortazzi’s (2001) narrative analysis approach, 101 journal entries of family caregivers of persons with advanced cancer. The data was condensed into poetic phrases to reflect structural categories outlined by Cortazzi of event, description and evaluation resulting in a poetic narrative entitled ‘The Chaos of Caregiving and Hope’. Each stanza of the poetic narrative describes the day-to-day experiences of the participants’ chaos and hope. We believe that looking at the caregiving experience through poetic presentation provided new insights into the lives of caregivers caring for terminally ill cancer patients. These insights are related to the intensity of the chaos, and how hope is present in their daily lives.

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)0.001
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 score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.304 · 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