MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171318394 · doi:10.1136/ebn.6.2.63

Women living with chronic illness experienced transition that involved stages of distress and a quest for ordinariness

2003· letter· en· W2171318394 on OpenAlexaff
C. Emery

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2003
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsFraser Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistressMedicineWeb of scienceGynecologyPsychiatryInternal medicineClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kralik D. The quest for ordinariness: transition experienced by midlife women living with chronic illness. J Adv Nurs2002 ; 39 : 146 –54 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: What is the meaning of living with chronic illness for midlife women? A feminist participatory research design. No fixed setting because of data collection method (email and letter writing). 81 women aged 30–50 years (mean age 44 y) who identified themselves as living with adult onset chronic illness. Women were from Australia, New Zealand, Samoa, North America, and the United Kingdom. Through email and letter writing spanning 12 months, women told their stories about their experiences of living with chronic illness. The frequency of correspondence varied at the discretion of each participant. Correspondence data from participants were thematically analysed. A subset of engaged participants was actively involved in developing constructs and themes by offering validation, clarification, and interpretation. 2 major themes emerged: extraordinariness , which represented the phase of turmoil and distress … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2Badvanced%2Bnursing%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BAdv%2BNurs%26rft.aulast%253DKralik%26rft.auinit1%253DD.%26rft.volume%253D39%26rft.issue%253D2%26rft.spage%253D146%26rft.epage%253D154%26rft.atitle%253DThe%2Bquest%2Bfor%2Bordinariness%253A%2Btransition%2Bexperienced%2Bby%2Bmidlife%2Bwomen%2Bliving%2Bwith%2Bchronic%2Billness.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1046%252Fj.1365-2648.2000.02254.x%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12100658%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.02254.x&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12100658&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F6%2F2%2F63.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000176526300010&link_type=ISI

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations11
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicDiabetes Management and EducationFrench-language works237,207