MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134537851 · doi:10.1177/2333393614548762

Living With Chronic Lower Pulmonary Disease

2014· article· en· W2134537851 on OpenAlexaff
Charlotte Pooler

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Qualitative Nursing Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, psychology, and well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbodied cognitionPhenomenology (philosophy)Thematic analysisPulmonary diseaseMedicineLived experienceDiseaseExperiential learningPsychologyHermeneutic phenomenologyQualitative researchPsychotherapistSociologyPathologyPedagogyInternal medicineSocial scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, I present a phenomenological study of individuals' experiences of living with moderate to very severe chronic lower pulmonary disease (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, or both). Phenomenology is a philosophy, distinct from descriptive or thematic research, which is useful as a foundation for scientific inquiry. In this study, I used the lens of Merleau-Ponty to understand and interpret participants' experiences of living with pulmonary disease, and the approach of van Manen for analysis. I conclude that in chronic pulmonary disease, awareness of breathing and the body is experienced in the sounds, sensations, and signals of breathing and the body, and in the experiences of the body-in-the-world. Central themes of being-in-the-world from the study describe the disruption of the embodied phenomenological self: Participants experienced slowing down, doing less, and having to stop due to shortness of breath. Both chronic and acute dyspnea were prevalent and the taken-for-granted aspects of daily activities were disrupted. Findings of this study have implications for public and patient education, and opportunities for integration of experiential aspects within nursing education and practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.602
Teacher spread0.450 · 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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Qualitative Nursing ResearchSame topicHealth, psychology, and well-beingFrench-language works237,207