MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140234628 · doi:10.1177/0894318405280353

Persevering Through a Difficult Time During the SARS Outbreak in Toronto

2005· article· en· W2140234628 on OpenAlexaffabout
Debra A. Bournes, Mary Ferguson-Paré

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutbreakMiddle East respiratory syndromePerspective (graphical)MedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Social connectednessPsychologySociologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Social psychologyDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to describe the experience of persevering through a difficult time for patients, family members of patients, nurses, and allied health professionals during the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak. van Kaam's phenomenological research method, with the human becoming theory as the theoretical perspective, was used to gather and analyse data from 63 participants who agreed to describe a situation that illuminated their experience of persevering through a difficult time (either online or using a voicemail system). Data gathering occurred in early April 2003 in the midst of the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak in Toronto, Canada. The finding was the structural definition, persevering through a difficult time is dispiriting trepidation arising with witnessing suffering. It is a smothering connectedness with sequestering protection as unsettling contentment emerges amid unburdening hope. It sheds light on what is important for preparing for possible future outbreaks of this and other infectious diseases.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.369 · 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

Citations22
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Science QuarterlySame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207