Bibliographic record
Abstract
This descriptive correlational study explored the relationship between perceived social support and perceptions of illness for individuals living with New York Heart Association Class Two or Class Three congestive heart failure. A total of 34 participants were interviewed at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ambulatory Heart Failure Clinic. Participants completed three questionnaires, which included a demographic questionnaire, a social support questionnaire (PRQ-85/Part Two), and the Meaning of Illness Questionnaire (MOIQ). Results indicated that subjects perceived their social support to be high. Perceived social support was seen to account for 24% of the variance in MOIQ Factor 3 (degree of stress, change in commitments, and secondary coping resources to deal with it), and 11% of the variance in MOIQ Factor 2 (type of stress, negative attitude of harm, loss or threat, and viewing the illness as disabling, disfiguring and deteriorating). Content analysis revealed six major themes which described the subjects' feelings about how heart failure had affected their lives. The themes that were elicited were: physical limitations, surprise and disbelief, a need for knowledge, adjustment, support from significant others, and getting in touch with one's spirituality. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".