MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142363238 · doi:10.1177/0894318409331932

The Lived Experience of Waiting

2009· article· en· W2142363238 on OpenAlex
Rahel Naef, Debra A. Bournes

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

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLived experienceRelation (database)PsychologyPatient experienceNursingHealth careMedicineComputer sciencePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purposes of this study were to discover the structure of the lived experience of waiting and to generate new knowledge about health and quality of life. The participants in this study were 11 persons who were on a waiting list for a lung transplant. The Parse research method was used to answer the research question: What is the structure of the lived experience of waiting? The central finding of this study was: The lived experience of waiting is arduous constraint arising with anticipating the cherished in fortifying engagements. This finding illustrates waiting as an immensely difficult and agonizing experience of persistently expecting a prized opportunity, finding strength in being with other persons, and engaging in diverse activities. The findings are discussed in relation to nursing knowledge and as to how they inform future research and humanbecoming patient-centered nursing practices.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.375 · 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