MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235320674 · doi:10.5737/1181912x1026468

John’s story: An application of the Calgary Family Intervention Model

2000· article· en· W4235320674 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Danielle Ménard, Andréanne Saucier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Oncology Nursing Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsHôpital Notre-DameJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPalliative careIntervention (counseling)WrightArtMedicineNursingArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fruit de la mise en commun d’expériences professionnelles des deux auteurs, le texte qui suit constitue un exemple d’application du modèle Calgary Family Assessment (CFAM) et Calgary Family Intervention (CFIM) de Lorraine Wright et Maureen Leahey (1994). En effet, certains concepts théoriques décrits par ces auteurs guideront l’analyse de cette situation clinique. Il s’agit d’une intervention brève de quatre rencontres dans le but de favoriser l’adaptation d’une famille en période palliative. À travers chacune des rencontres, l’infirmière illustre les principes qui guident les conversations thérapeutiques avec la famille soient la formulation d’hypothèses, la circularité, et la neutralité. Par son intervention, elle facilite la suite de l’histoire sans Jean.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Oncology Nursing JournalSame topicCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207