MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328918401 · doi:10.1097/jnn.0b013e3182135b28

Supportive Care Needs After an Acute Stroke

2011· article· en· W2328918401 on OpenAlexaff
Laura MacIsaac, Margaret B. Harrison, Diane Buchanan, Wilma M. Hopman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience Nursing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeeds assessmentMedicineStroke (engine)Focus groupPopulationAcute careNursingIdentification (biology)PsychologyHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This mixed-methods study explored the use of the Supportive Care Needs Framework (M. Fitch, 1998; M. Fitch, H. B. Porter, & B. D. Page, 2008) as an overall guide to identify the wide spectrum of needs of the family caregivers of patients with stroke. Within this framework, a needs assessment survey developed for a different complex medical population was modified and administered to 10 caregivers of patients recently diagnosed with stroke to identify the specific needs of this population. The applicability of the tool was further evaluated through a focus group of nurses working in acute stroke care. The Supportive Care Needs Framework provides a useful and comprehensive framework for the assessment of caregiver need. Results suggest that although additional validation is needed, the modified survey may aid nurses in early identification of caregiver needs.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.326
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience NursingSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207