COPD stories of complex causal ‘truths’‘Sure I’ve smoked all my life/but I also put in 37 years at the mine’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Secondary analysis was conducted to interpret the causes of illness stories told by patients living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. BACKGROUND: Despite the abundance of quantitative evidence regarding the causal relationship between smoking and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, there is limited research that provides a contextual emic understanding of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease aetiology. DESIGN: Interview data from two earlier focused ethnography studies were examined by retrospective interpretation, a type of secondary qualitative research. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease causation stories were identified in both primary study data bases, but were not previously systematically examined. METHODS: The analysis was completed using an eclectic, explicit narrative approach that involved the examination of causation story elements. RESULTS: Participants told 104 causal stories about the development of their lung disease. They situated the aetiology of their chronic illness within a psychosocial reality. CONCLUSIONS: The causal stories told by participants demonstrate that those living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease present a broader causal explanation for their illness, an orientation not commonly presented in the literature. They demonstrate the need for further examination of the important lay accounts of causes of illness in relation to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Clinicians' ability to hear an alternative understanding may be impeded when they only listen for what they already know, 'facts' concerning the relationship between smoking and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Addressing vulnerable persons in such a manner may impede patients' efforts to be responsible for the development of their chronic illness and individualised care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".