The self-described meaning making of Icelandic elderly in rehabilitation : A phenomenological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: In the present study factors that influence meaning making of elderly people were explored from the perspective of elderly people themselves. Design and methods: The Vancouver School of doing phenomenology was the methodological approach of the study. The sample consisted of eight elderly people, ages 65-72, with mean age 67 years. These older adults were purposively sampled. Results: The findings are presented within a tentative explanatory model with four main themes. The participants described their sense of meaning-making from a variety of standpoints, influenced mostly by foundational factors i.e. their ethical values; social self-image; health image; their self-assessment and role-models incorporated in their self-image; as well as their childhood as predetermining sense of meaning. Factors that positively influenced meaning making were e.g. practicing virtue; strengthening family bonds; working-through emotions and trauma; professional success; using humor as a response to stressors, meditation and relaxation; belief in higher deity; being hopeful; and regularly experiencing nature’s dimensions. Factors that compromised meaning making were e.g. intrusive thoughts; compassion pains; difficulties with expressing emotions; living with memories of trauma; family health problems; being disorganized; religious views that cause emotional pain; and isolation from coping resources. Finally, there were certain learning factors influencing conceptions of importance regarding meaning-making. Implications: By studying the factors that influence meaning-making in elderly people as well as how meaning making is described by the elderly, hopefully a clearer understanding of the perceived relations between meaning making and health can be acquired. By examining how the elderly describe making meaning this study could contribute by generating hypotheses in the area of meaning making and health.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".