MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Myocardial infarction: survivors’ and spouses’ stress, coping, and support

2000· article· en· W2170317257 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

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial supportCoping (psychology)SpousePsychosocialEmotional supportPsychologyMyocardial infarctionClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite evidence that spouses play an important role in the recovery of MI survivors, there have been few studies of pertinent psychosocial factors from the perspectives of both survivors and spouses. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to describe stress, coping strategies and social support experienced by survivors and spouses. This study was limited to first-time MI to focus on a time of uncertainty and transition. Twenty-eight persons (14 couples) participated. Both survivors and their spouses reported similar post-MI stresses: emotional impact, lifestyle changes, encounters with health professionals, and their partners' reactions. Spouses and survivors used diverse strategies to cope with the stresses of MI. Seeking informational support was prevalent. Both spouses and survivors engaged in 'protective buffering' of their partners. Couples described deficient support, conflict and miscarried helping efforts within their relationships. Spouses and survivors referred to inadequate informational support from health professionals.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.318 · 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