When one partner can no longer see: Exploring the lived experiences of romantic partners in the context of vision loss
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative descriptive study aims to explore the lived experience of the adjustment process of couples who face vision loss, investigating the impact of such loss on daily life and the adjustments and adaptations that ensue. To undertake such an exploration, the application of an occupational perspective is relevant where the meaning and purpose partners ascribe to their everyday activities can be investigated. A total of 16 couples living in Western Switzerland were interviewed between January and June 2020. Data collection was carried out with semi-structured face-to-face interview. Three themes emerge from the thematic analysis of transcripts. The first theme emphasizes that either separate or joint everyday activities of partners can be shared within couples, which all give sense to the partnership; the second one shows that vision loss disrupts the engagement of partners in such shared everyday activities. The third theme highlights partners’ efforts to reshape their engagement in their shared everyday activities in order to maintain a sense of couple’s we-ness. While navigating vision loss requires both partners to jointly engage in this process of reshaping, couples described tension that arises because of the partners with vision loss’ growing dependence on the other partner. One’s sense of control when navigating vision loss is critical to adjust to a changing and changed daily life. Further research is needed that focuses on how romantic partners ascribe a shared meaning and purpose to their engagement in everyday activities, separate or joint, and how such meaning and purpose are impacted by the onset or aggravation of one partner’s vision loss.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it