MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162680546 · doi:10.1177/10497323211011442

Understanding Gut Feelings: Transformations in Coping With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Among Young Adults

2021· article· en· W3162680546 on OpenAlexaff
Jan Gelech, Michel Desjardins, Kathrina Mazurik, Kari N. Duerksen, Kevin McGuigan-Scott, Kristy Lichtenwald

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoping (psychology)FeelingNarrativeInflammatory bowel diseasePsychologyNormalization (sociology)Social psychologyDiseaseMedicineDevelopmental psychologyPsychotherapistSociologyPathologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Past studies have revealed a dizzying array of coping techniques employed by persons living with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Unfortunately, research has provided little insight into when and why individuals adopt or abandon particular coping strategies. Using a retrospective narrative approach, we explored how participants made sense of changes in their approach to coping over time. Shifts in coping strategies were associated with particular illness experiences that wrought new understandings of IBD and novel identity challenges. They followed a common processual form and were marked by a movement away from techniques of purification, normalization, and banalization toward the development of a more communicative body. This was accompanied by notable shifts in identity work. Notably, participants moved from a preoccupation with maintaining continuity and sameness to permitting their extraordinary bodies to occupy a place in their public and personal identities. Implications of this process for theory and practice are discussed.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.525
GPT teacher head0.585
Teacher spread0.060 · 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.

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

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207