MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124334451

A PHENOMENOLOGICAL INQUIRY OF THE EXPERIENCE OF CARING FOR A LOVED ONE RECENTLY DIAGNOSED WITH AMNESTIC MILD COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT

2011· article· en· W3124334451 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S. Woolmore-Goodwin

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTechnology and Human Factors in Education and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitive impairmentCognitionTemporalityInterpretative phenomenological analysisAutobiographical memoryDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyMedicinePsychotherapistPsychiatryEpistemologyQualitative researchPhilosophySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT\nThere are currently 500,000 people living with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in Canada. It is estimated that the total costs associated with AD are 15 billion Canadian dollars per year. Informal caregivers across the nation provide an estimated 231 million hours of unpaid care annually. Individuals diagnosed with Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment (aMCI) have the highest rate of conversion to AD, with an average 5-year conversion rate from time of aMCI diagnosis. This study aimed to understand how carers of individuals recently diagnosed with aMCI experience the transition into their new role of care provider and what implications their new role has on carer well-being.\nTo explore the meaning of the experience of caring for a loved one with aMCI, a hermeneutic phenomenological investigation was used. Five carers created a narrative through in-depth interviewing which provided detailed and rich descriptions of their experiences. Data were analysed using van Manen’s methodological structure for human science inquiry. The essence of the experience of caring for a loved one recently diagnosed with aMCI is the need for the carer to wear multiple masks in order to cope with the accumulated multiple losses they suffer as they continually adjust to their new and evolving carer identity.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.108 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicTechnology and Human Factors in Education and HealthFrench-language works237,207