MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136108280 · doi:10.1177/1054773809353163

Testing a Model of Delayed Care-Seeking for Acute Myocardial Infarction

2009· article· en· W2136108280 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

VenueClinical Nursing Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttributionMyocardial infarctionMedicineCoping (psychology)Psychological interventionStructural equation modelingClinical psychologyPsychologyInternal medicinePsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A theory-testing approach to the study of delay in seeking treatment for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was performed using a descriptive design with 135 AMI patients. Participants provided information pertaining to history of AMI, symptom congruence, responses to symptoms, cardiac symptom attribution, and AMI care-seeking delay. Structural equation modeling fit indices suggested that the independent predictors of AMI care-seeking delay were cardiac symptom attribution and emotion-focused coping. History of AMI had a direct relationship with AMI care-seeking delay, but its total effect through symptom attribution and symptom congruence was not significant. The total effect of symptom congruence on AMI care-seeking delay was significant. In conclusion, the study findings highlight the importance of targeting cardiac symptom attribution and emotion-focused coping in interventions that are aimed at reducing AMI care-seeking delay.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.583
Teacher spread0.334 · 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