MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792585817 · doi:10.1177/0894318418755730

The Living Experience of Suffering: A Parse Method Study

2018· article· en· W2792585817 on OpenAlexaff
Judith D. Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Health and Long Term Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelation (database)ParsingPsychologyIndependent livingActivities of daily livingGerontologyMedicinePsychiatryComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to investigate the humanuniverse living experience of suffering. The Parse method was used to answer the question: What is the structure of the living experience of suffering? The participants were 10 adults living in the community. The finding of the study, the structure of the living experience of suffering, was found to be as follows: Suffering is anguishing desolation with varied alliances arising with envisioning anew. The living experience of suffering is discussed in relation to the principles of the humanbecoming paradigm and in relation to further research inquiries.

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)0.002
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.445 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Science QuarterlySame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207