MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037852487

Psychological adjustment following severe lower limb trauma: A repertory grid study

2001· dissertation· en· W3037852487 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alison Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueUCL Discovery (University College London) · 2001
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive and psychological constructs research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepertory gridPsychologyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationSocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study explores prospectively how people come to terms with a severe injury to a lower limb following acute trauma. Participants were adults admitted to plastic surgery or orthopaedic surgery wards with open tibial fractures undergoing reconstructive surgery. Participants were seen within six weeks of injury, and asked to complete three short questionnaires (the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Impact of Events Scale, and the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire). In addition, participants completed a repertory grid using self and social role elements. After a three-month interval participants were sent the questionnaires and were asked to rerate their repertory grid elements according to the constructs generated in the initial interview. The repertory grid data was analysed using Principal Component Analysis and by examining construct correlations and inter-element distances. The constructs generated were also considered thematically. Data from the questionnaires was used primarily to describe the population and changes over time. The results are discussed in relation to psychological theory and previous research findings on adjustment, trauma, self-concept and construct systems. Findings indicate that the personal meaning of lower limb trauma influences the impact on the self-concept, and that changes in the construct system are apparent over time suggesting a process of adjustment to injury. Limitations of the present study are discussed and the implications of the findings for service provision and further research are 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUCL Discovery (University College London)Same topicCognitive and psychological constructs researchFrench-language works237,207