Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease as Disability: Dilemma Stories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this work was to develop an understanding of the meaning of disability for individuals living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in a Canadian midwestern community from an emic perspective. A focused ethnographic design was used. Fifteen individuals participated in interviews. Narrative analysis was used to examine the interview data. Data analysis revealed 65 dilemma stories consisting of two structural components: the impairment, and the justification/explanation of the impairment. Participants' impairment might or might not have been known to others. In both situations, individuals were faced with choices of whether to explain/justify or attempt to conceal the impairment. Participants told these dilemma stories to convey the meaning of COPD as a disability invisible to others, and at times, to themselves. The information gained from this research will serve as an essential complement to the existing knowledge about this important yet often invisible chronic illness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".