MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2726910630 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.4584

EVALUATION OF ISUPPORT IN CANADA: THE USABILITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE “CARING FOR ME” MODULE

2017· article· en· W2726910630 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jayna Holroyd‐Leduc, Arlene Huhn, Nadine Jette

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily Caregiving in Mental Illness
Canadian institutionsAlzheimer Society of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityContext (archaeology)Randomized controlled trialHealth carePsychologyNursingMedical educationApplied psychologyMedicineComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this research is to evaluate the evidence-informed support program (iSupport) developed by the World Health Organization, within the Canadian context. Specifically, using grant funding from the Canadian Institute of Health Research, we are evaluating the effectiveness of the iSupport module focused on caregiver self-efficacy and self-care (‘Caring for Me’). We are testing the overall usability of iSupport with family caregivers. This will be followed by a randomized controlled trial to determine the impact of the iSupport ‘Caring for Me’ module on caregiver outcomes such as self-efficacy and burden. Preliminary results of the usability study will be presented.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicFamily Caregiving in Mental IllnessFrench-language works237,207