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

Supportive Care Needs After an Acute Stroke

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

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 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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

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 head0.035
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